That's why it's so frustrating when you see people in the health freedom community that continue to promote these narratives that are based on fear without any actual scientific evidence backing it up. Like you talked about with the bioweapon or the vaccine shedding and stuff like that. That's just keeping people in a consistent state of fear. And to me, that's definitely the wrong direction. We don't want to keep pushing people towards fear. 

We want to just make sure that they understand that there's really nothing there that they have to fear and just to live your life and take control back. But also, like you said, not outsourcing your health. Don't outsource your mind. Look into this stuff. Research it for yourself. Don't just trust the expert. One of the funniest articles I ever saw was, I think it was a Forbes one, was, don't do your own research. 

We're trying to argue that people shouldn't go out there and can learn for themselves. Mike Stone is the creator of Virology. com, which scrutinizes the world of virology and germ theory and exposes their gaping flaws. Mike is completely self taught and woke up to the problems of virology after a particularly saddening personal experience. Once the Covid-19 fraud began, Mike felt compelled to share his own research findings and now has one of the world's most extensive repositories of information surrounding alleged viruses. 

Mark and I talked with him for 2 hours and the time just flew by. He is honorable, humble, and one of the kindest people you will ever meet. Welcome Mike Stone, the Mike Stone, to our channel. We are so excited to be able to finally talk with you. Well, thank you. I'm really excited to talk to both of you, too. You and I actually talk all the time. 

And I think the first time we appeared together on screen was the end of COVID And it was kind of funny because I guess for the audience, they thought, oh, well, look, these guys like Steve and, you know, Mike and mark are all together, but we'd all been talking for years before that. I should actually tell the audience because I think they'll be interested in how we actually got to find out about you because we knew about you well before viral ig even appeared on the scene. 

But we didn't. I didn't know that. Wow. Yeah. And so it was 2020, and Salmon started early in 2020. He started making videos about COVID and we were all new to virology at that stage, and we were just waking up to how much fraud was going on. And when Sam was making videos, particularly about things like PCR and virus existence, Val Turner from the Perth group reached out and started communicating with us, basically bringing us up to speed with all of the historical stuff that had gone on, not only with HIV, but with a whole lot of other stuff. 

Then it was later on in 2020. He sent Sam an email and said, look at this post on Facebook and keep in mind that Val is amazing guy, and he does not give out compliments. He doesn't. He's very careful what he says. And I've had him critique my work before, and he's amazing to critique your work, because he'll pick you up on the slightest mistakes that you make. 

And anyway, it was a Facebook post by one Mike stone, and it concerned the cell culture process. And you decided stuff, I think, from ATCC, you talked about passaging, all the lack of the scientific protocols that they were using. And Valtener said that whoever this guy is, he knows what he's talking about. And there you go. That was the first time we ever came across your work. And it was well before you had a website or a blog or anything, I think. 

Yeah, because I think the cell culture stuff was the first stuff that I really was diving into and doing Facebook posts on. So I would share different posts, basically challenging the virus narrative. Like, anytime the MSM would put out articles on Covid-19 I would go through and PCR and kind of pick those apart. But the cell culture stuff was actually the first. Those were the first in depth Facebook posts that I was doing. 

So I don't know how he came across that, because it was just like a small group, but that's pretty awesome. I think he was one of the first to reach out to me when I started the blog. He wrote me some comments on some articles, and I was like, holy crap, it's Val Turner. I was pretty excited. Sam's reaction was the same to the first time. She told me that there was an email from someone called Valendor Turner. 

And she said, is that familiar, this name? And I was like, I raced to the copy of virus mania that we'd got in early 2020, and I was going, oh, my goodness. I said, this is the same Valentine Turner of the first group, because with the Facebook stuff, by then, Sam and I, we couldn't even get Facebook accounts in 2020, Sam's name had already been promoted by the fact checkers and flagged. 

The censorship got really bad. I mean, that's what actually drove me to doing the blog was the fact that anytime I mentioned, like, PCR or the vaccine, it was basically an automatic suspension. They would ban me. And it started off like maybe a 24 hours ban, then I'd get a week ban. Then it went all the way to 30 days. I'm like, I can't be sitting here idle not doing anything for 30 days. 

I need to get this information out there. And I was terrified that they were going to delete all my content because I had stored all these posts that I'd done, like on cell culture and antibodies, and I was going through different viruses and stuff like that. And I was creating these collections on Facebook. And I thought that people could actually see those collections, but I don't think you can access them. 

Or maybe it was just for me, but I got terrified that they were going to just go through and delete those. And then they kept banning me. So I'm like, well, I need to do something about this. And that actually drove me to create the website because I couldn't post anything anymore, any little mention of PCR. The first one that got me banned was this article I did called the testing pandemic, where I went through and just shared excerpts on why the PCR test was brought. 

I think I went through the Troston Cormann report that Dr. Corbett had done and a bunch of other like, that was an automatic just ban. They would not let me post that. Hey, that's. That's amazing you mentioned that, Mike, because as you know, we're in the final stages of writing a new book at the moment, and Mike Stone is going to be quoted. Well, unless one of our editors doesn't want it in there. 

There are six chapters, six big chapters, and each chapter starts with a couple of quotes. And one of your quotes from the testing pandemic, I think you featured it in the Corona series. Yeah, about the testing pandemic. And I thought that you made a couple of sentences and I thought, that is it. That summarizes exactly what know very much in line with what Dr. Klaus Kunlein said in his PCR pandemic interview with Sam about the testing pandemic. 

You're in the mike. Oh, all right. That's awesome. I'm excited to see that. I'll be first in line to buy it, for sure. You're not buying a copy. We'll be sending you. My money's no good. Mike, I'd really like to start with you, actually, to go back in time and to hear your journey, because where you came from, because I think it's always interesting to see what started you on this journey in particular into virology, if you can let us know. 

I guess what really started getting me to question just the allopathic model was, as I was talking to you earlier, originally in 2007, I injured my back, I fractured my spine, and the allopathic model, basically, they just wanted to drug me up and cut me open, was essentially what they wanted to do. And the doctor that I'd seen at the time, they'd done some mris and everything, said I had a spinal fusion surgery to correct my back, and I had actually signed up for the surgery, and I was going to go through with it, but I got this feeling at the time, I'm like, I shouldn't go through with this. 

This is not the right path for me. And I got kind of nervous about it. So I'm like, maybe I should google the doctor just to make sure he's on the up and up, that this surgery is something necessary that I need to do. And I investigate him, and I found out that the guy had been barred from practice in Minnesota and then somehow got a license in Iowa, and he was set to do my surgery. 

I'm like, oh, no, I'm not going to go through with that. That just automatically was a red flag. So I went through, and I canceled that surgery. Got some second opinion. I got a second opinion, and the guy told me it was like 50 50, you could either go through the surgery or not. Another guy. I did a third opinion. He said, don't do it. You don't need it. 

It's not something that's worth your time. And a fourth opinion. The guy said, if I fused my spine at this time, by the time I was 50, I would have my whole spine fused. And essentially what they ended up doing was just putting me on medication, like really bad pain medicine medicines like oxycodone and fentanyl and tramadol. I was on multiple different drugs. And when I think back on this period, it's actually kind of difficult for me to think because my head was so cloudy. 

Like, my brain had this really bad brain fog, which I'm still trying to get over. But this whole period, it was a period from, like, 2007 to 2018, was basically just drugs and trying to do whatever I could to minimize pain. And I went through different injections in my spine. They burned my nerves. They did a lot of different things to try and treat the symptoms, but nothing was really helping me to help with the cause. 

So the best thing that I found for me was physical therapy and just trying to manage pain through ice and heat. In 2018, I actually got myself off the pain medications because I almost died on fentanyl. There was two different instances where I had really severe reactions with the drug. And the doctor said, if I hadn't taken, I was wearing a patch at the time. If I hadn't taken that patch off myself, I would have died. 

The effects were so bad. So I already had this feeling that there was something wrong with our system, like they were going through and not really helping me with the underlying cause of my pain, but they were just trying to mask it with band aids, so to speak, with the drugs. So that got me to start questioning things. Then when my son was born in 2013, I wasn't into vaccines, but my parents, my family was, you have to go and get your son vaccinated. 

This is the way that you're going to protect him from childhood diseases. And I was kind of uneasy about that. But my wife, she was like, no, we're not going to do vaccines. We don't do that. That was her culture at the time. But I was kind of stuck. I was like, with my family, like, well, you need to do this. You can't not get your son vaccinated. 

If you do, basically, you're a bad parent. They didn't tell me that, but that's how I felt. If I don't go through with this process, then if something happens to my son, I'm to blame for it if he comes down with one of the childhood diseases. So we went through, I convinced my wife to do this process, and we went through, and I'm sorry, this is kind of difficult for me to talk about. 

We went through his first year shots, and I don't know why, but the first time he got vaccinated, I actually recorded it on my phone. I felt that this was kind of like a rite of passage, and I needed to record this big moment in his life. He was getting his vaccine, and it was kind of horrifying. Like, I've got this recording on my phone of my son getting his first vaccine, and he was all happy and everything, and then they inject him. 

Just sheer terror, pain, crying. And I can't even watch that video without tearing up because of this. It conflicted with how I felt. Like at the time, I was a father. I'm supposed to protect my son, and here I am allowing these people to hold him down and inject them with who knows what's in these vaccines. And at the time, I hadn't really challenged, or I hadn't really researched what was in a vaccine, but I had actually come across a meme on Facebook that a friend of mine had shared at the time, and this was a few years before, but had challenged the ingredients. 

And I remember seeing formaldehyde being a part of it, and that I knew it was obviously used in embalming fluid and things like that that stuck in my brain. It was like this little seed that was planted in me a few years prior. And so when I saw my son have this really bad reaction to vaccine, his first one, unfortunately, it didn't snap me out of the vaccines at the time. 

And we did go along with it for a few months, but near the end of the first year, he had a series and I believe was the ttap. But I can't remember exactly what the vaccines were, but he was injected with them and he immediately got sick. Like, he had difficulty breathing. I cannot remember exactly what the doctors diagnosed him with, but the treatment was I had to put a nebulizer on him, and he wasn't even a year old at this time, but he was having difficulty breathing. 

I had to hold him in my arms and put this mask on him. It was some sort of medication that he had to breathe. And he was struggling with me trying to pull this mask off, and I would have to sit there and rock him and try to sing him to calm him down and keep this mask on him. And it was traumatic for me. And I'm like, why am I going through this process? I started to make that connection right then and there that he had just had this series of vaccinations. 

He got sick after it, and now I'm sitting here. The thing I was trying to prevent, I just allowed to happen to him. And so that got me to start questioning vaccines. And after that, we were done. I said, I'm sorry. I apologized to my wife. I was wrong. I made a mistake. We're not going to do this anymore. And we stopped his vaccines. Luckily, we had a doctor at the time who, he wasn't happy about it, but he understood where we were coming from, and so we stopped that. 

A few years after that, my mother in law actually came to live with us. She's from Somalia, but she was traveling from Ethiopia at the time. And this was probably the biggest moment that actually woke me up to the whole fraud of virology was when she came to the US. She had to be given a series of injections in order to get into this country. She had to do some tests to make sure that she didn't have HIV or any of these other diseases that they were afraid that she might bring into the country. 

And she had actually tested negative for HIV at the time. And when she came here, about six weeks after she came to the US, and this was in January, she got really sick and she started losing weight. She was coughing all the time, know, sweating, not really eating. And so we got concerned and my wife took her to the doctor, and at that time, they ended up diagnosing her with HIV. 

And that just kind of blew my mind. I'm like, wait a second. And I knew at this time that HIV, they said if you get infected, it can take years for it to turn into AIDS. But not only did they say that she was diagnosed with HIV, they said she had full blown AIDS at this time. And it just didn't make any sense to me. I'm like, she just had a negative test from just six weeks before. 

How did she go from a negative HIV test to coming to our country, coming down sick and then having a positive test and not only being HIV positive, but full blown AIDS? And so something didn't seem right about the tests. And I started researching those and just trying to make sense of this diagnosis. And it actually started to, I don't know how I did at the time, but I came across the information from, I believe it was virusmith. 

com and the rethinking AIDS group. And I started questioning, seeing their work, questioning the validity of the test. And I also found the Perth group from them as well. And they had done amazing know, challenging the antibody tests, the Lysol test and all that. I ended up talking to the doctor. I'm like, how accurate are these tests? And like, well, we do one and if it's positive, then we have to do a confirmary test with another test. 

And it's positive. It's three tests, and if you get all three of them, then you're a positive case. I'm like, well, how did she go from this not testing positive to HIV? It just didn't read right to me. So long story short, eventually they ended up changing the diagnosis to tuberculosis, which I ended up finding out was one of like, I think, 70 conditions that they claim can cause a false positive for an HIV test. 

And she was put on drugs for like nine months to treat the tuberculosis. And she did improve at that time, which we were like, oh, this is great. She's actually improving. She's going to get her health back on track. But then she stopped once they took her off those medications. About three weeks later, she got really sick again and she started coughing again, got really sweaty, was starting to lose weight. 

And we ended up taking to the doctors and they rushed her to the hospital saying that she had, I believe at this time it was like pneumonia, some sort of pneumonia. And that was it. Once we took her to the doctor, they put her on oxygen. That ended up leading to blowing out her lungs. She was intubated. And the last two years of her life, she was stuck in a hospital, drugged up beyond all recognition. 

We were able to get her out of that. And she actually passed away right as Covid happened. And so I would say those three experiences, sorry, I know it's a long story, but those three experiences are what really opened up my eyes to the fraud of not only our medical system, but virology. Because as my mother in law was in the hospital, once the wall fell for HIV, I started questioning the existence of HIV, I started questioning other viruses, and I started looking into the methodology behind them and it just basically opened up my eyes. 

I just wish I had seen this all before, not only with her, so I could have kept her out of the hospital, but also with my son, so he was never vaccinated. What I've noticed, too, is that some people who have, we have some advantage of previously being doctors that did hospital medicine for years. And now we can speak out against what we saw because, yeah, I'm sure that doctors that were involved with your mother in law's case would think that everything was above board and it was just that there was nothing they could do because these, quote, infections come and get people. 

And despite everything that allopathic medicine has to offer, they'll just say, oh, sometimes we can't treat them all. But I'll tell you some other interesting stories about our experiences inside the system and in New Zealand. So tb is very uncommon here in New Zealand, we hardly ever see it, but occasionally we would have cases. If someone was on your ward and they had influenza, people were just like, oh, yeah. 

Nobody was wearing face masks or anything. They just said, oh, yeah, wash your hands. Da da da. If somebody had pneumonia, again, no doctors or nurses, they're wearing face masks. If a case of tb came in, oh, my goodness, look out. They had to go into a separate room. You had a full ppe kits outside with the trays of different gloves and all these things you have to put on with the signs. 

Absolute pandemonium. Sometimes if they had laminar flow air, they'd use that all this kind of stuff. And people restricted entry, all this kind of stuff. And it was just strange because, as you know, on their own terms, they try and claim that things like influenza are highly contagious and yet they didn't really care. And with tuberculosis, it was like, because they said, oh, my goodness, if you get tuberculosis, it's so serious you could end up dying. 

But it made no sense at all. And as you know, the fraud goes much deeper because we're all inhaling these bacteria all of the time. I mean, they're just in the environment. And if you actually take lung fluid out of people, you'll find all manner of so called pathogens, they'll call them, when in fact, they have no capacity to induce disease in a subject. They just proliferate if the person gets sick. 

So, yeah, it's interesting, the inconsistencies within the system. That's why when people ask me, it's those three moments in my life that I trace it back to the most pivotal being what happened to my mother in law. And literally, I sat there and thought those two years that she was in the hospital, they were drugging her to death. There were times I counted like 20 different medications or things that they had her on, and we wanted to get her off of those medications. 

They wouldn't allow it for her to stay in this care, we had to go along with their program. And what was really troubling to me and my wife was they tried to convince us multiple times to take her off the breathing tube and just to let her suffocate. They had no desire to really work with her, get her off the breathing, with the intubation, to get her off that. 

We tried at one time. We're like, we believe she's strong enough. We have this routine, let's go through, wean her off the medications. No steroids. We didn't want to do any steroids. Like, no, we'll do it, but they're going to do steroids. And I was looking into these steroids at the time. I can't remember which ones they were, but I'm like, they showed in some studies that it could blow out someone's lungs or could lead to more inflammation and stuff like that. 

And I question, I challenge them as, please, let's do this without the steroids. Let's let her get to her breathing on her own, get her off the tube. She was doing better. They put her on the steroids. Sure enough, lungs blown out. They would never let us try again. And I swear to this day, that her death, I believe they ended up putting it down as sepsis. But her death was caused by the numerous drugs that they had her on throughout those two years. 

And it did show me one thing, that the human body can really take a lot of damage. It's amazing. I still don't know how she hung on for as long as she did, but I know for a fact that my mother in law, she trusted me with her care. And I remember that night that we took her to the hospital, and she was come up the stairs, and she wanted my advice, should I go to the doctor? And I was very much against going to the doctor for anything. 

And I took a look at her, and I'm like, I think you should. Because she was sweating, she was having difficulty coming up the stairs, couldn't breathe. And I regret that decision to this day. I beat myself up over. I'm like, if I knew then what I know now, I would have never let her go to the hospital at that time. I would have said, hey, her body is just going through. 

It's trying to get clean out of the poisons that she had from the tuberculosis. Nine months of medication that she was on, and she would have been fine. But it was my decision to take her. And I beat myself up over that all the time. You have to forgive yourself, though, Mike, because you only had the information that you had at the time. And why do you think she initially got sick when she came to you guys? Oh, I think it was a lot of factors. 

They had done a series of penicillin injections, for one thing, on her to get her over to the US, which I looked into, like, the actual symptoms that she came down with. I can't remember what it's called now, but I actually looked into it, and it was this series of three penicillin injections that they did can lead to the same symptoms that she ended up coming down with. 

But at the time, she was under a lot of stress. She had never flown before, and she was terrified of flying. Her youngest daughter she had to leave behind to come to the US to live with us. She had never met me before, so she was coming to meet a new. Her son in law and to see her grandchild, because my son was three at the time, so she was under a lot of stress. 

She was going from a place that was relatively warm to Des Moines, Iowa, which was at the time in the 20 deg weather, didn't snow all over the place, so it was a shock to her. She didn't even have a coat when she arrived. So I think a lot of these different factors influenced her health at that time. And then it's also a change eating different food. She wasn't accustomed to the food that we ate and different things like that, I believe. 

And just living in a new environment. She went from Ethiopia to coming here and staying in a small apartment, a two bedroom apartment with me, my wife, my son, and it was just a huge change. And so I think, in all honesty, I believe all these different factors. I believe disease is multifactorial and I tend to go along with the train theory is that it's all these different things can affect us and whether it's the physical things that we're exposed to or even just our own mental stressors and all that stuff. 

I think it was just the perfect storm that unfortunately ruined her health at that time. And I do believe that she would have been better had we not taken her to the doctor either of those two times. The first time when she was know, diagnosed with tuberculosis, then we had someone with the CDC who would come in, she would come in with pills and her name was sue and we just nicknamed her vitamin sue because she'd come in every morning and she'd have her pills and I'd have to make sure that she'd take the pills. 

And we did this for nine months and nice woman, but it was basically poisoning her for nine months on these toxic drugs and she had to clean those out of her system. And if we had allowed that at the time, then I think things would have turned out differently. Yeah, I think, Mike, as Sam said, it's all about forgiveness. Because like you, we made mistakes as well with our oldest children. 

Like some of our oldest kids did have some vaccines when they were young as well. And since then we just apologized to the kids and did some detox with them with high silica water and that for quite a few months and said, yes, mum and dad, we got that one wrong. But luckily you guys are really healthy and don't seem to have had any adverse events. But it's also, I mean, if we think from what you have done is that you've used your own personal experiences to then help thousands maybe around the world, and you probably get the feedback like we do. 

Like, Sam will get emails all the time saying, I'm so glad I found your videos because I had a child in the last three years or four years or whatever, and I decided to be strong, go against what the public health people were advising. And we have beautifully healthy children that are going superbly. So, yeah. I think it's a matter of saying, treating those personal experiences as something that you can then help turn into a positive. 

Turn into a positive for many, many more people. Yeah. And if these experience hadn't have happened to you, then maybe you would never have woken up to it and you would never have produced this amazing amount of content which keeps getting bigger and bigger because, and I should say, too, talking about the kind of content that you produce because you use so much of their own material, I think that's been fantastic as well. 

And I've mentioned to you before that occasionally when I'm researching a topic, I'll look up something and I'll type in the disease and the practitioner or the researcher I'm looking for. And then a virology hit comes up in the salt. How did you get this? And it's because you use such similar words to them and it's working nicely. I don't even think in terms of algorithms or anything. 

That's amazing. I stumble into these things. Yeah. Because for some of the content we do, it won't come up, because if you look up, say, tuberculosis, of course it comes up with the know Australian Ministry of know UK HSA. There'll be all these other websites that it comes up with, but it's quite funny. And they won't go to a site which provides a critique apart from yours because it's so closely paralleled. 

And I know you didn't engineer it like that, but it's brilliant. No, I didn't. That's interesting. I even thought about that. But, yeah, using their own words, it probably picks up on those and then throws my sight out. That's interesting. And I think I'm so stupid technologically. I don't even think about that type of stuff. But that's pretty amazing. You just blew my mind. I didn't even think about that. 

And I think the other advantage you've had is that, and we know this from all of the white papers over the last decade, is that they thought that the problems with people calling out fake pandemics, vaccines, PCR, virology, they all thought it was going to come from doctors. So they were all set up to try and censor and cut off, you know, that's why they went after people like Sam so strongly. 

And if you look up their white papers, this is what they planned to do, was basically to take a platform away from any MD who started speaking up. And we know historically they do this as well, for doctors to speak out against vaccines and I think what's been great is that Mike Stone, because he doesn't have the MD after his name, has gone under the radar and built up this massive repository of material. 

And now I think the fact checkers wouldn't know what to do because there's too much there. It's not like with Andy and Sam and Tom. They did it really early when they'd only been speaking out for a few know and to try and put people off the scent. But meanwhile, Mike Stone was building up the arsenal in the background. Yeah, I got criticized early on. People thought I was like a psyop or controlled opposition or something because I was putting out so much content. 

So, like, there's no way one guy can be doing all this all the time. I'm like, these are just old Facebook posts that I'm taking. I'd already done all this stuff over a six month period. I was just transferring it over to my site, and I had to go through and rework it. But those early articles are difficult for me to read. They're just kind of pieced together. 

But I had to go through and rework them some. But, yeah, it was kind of crazy because I was able to mass a lot of content right away because I was just transferring over my old stuff I'd already spent all this time working on. You must have also had a lot of curiosity from early on. You're researching for your health, for your son, for your mother in law. 

It takes a lot of courage to actually push against those ideas that you had. Would that be fair? Yeah. My mother in law, she's the one that I feel kind of is, like, guiding me throughout all this. Like you said, it's about forgiveness. I try to forgive myself for the mistakes that I made in the past, but I do feel like I'm able to take the tragedy, the things that happened to her and look at the positives that I was able to gain this knowledge, and I am able to share it with a lot of people. 

But it was that whole period from 2017 to 2020 where I really started connecting all these dots, and I was going headfirst in the research, and I was just trying to prove them wrong. I'm like, this doesn't make sense. The things that you're telling me don't make sense. The way that you're treating her, the drugs that you're putting her on, just don't make sense to me. You're killing my mother in law. 

Stop. I wanted to stop them, and unfortunately, the way our system was set up, there's nothing I could do. Basically, you have unfortunately, really no say, if you want to have your loved one treated, you have to go along with their agenda. And that was so frustrating to me. But yeah, that period really was where I started waking up to the fraud of virology. And then Covid happened. 

Covid. The pandemic happened right at the time where my mom passed, my mother in law passed away. And that's when I realized that I needed to start speaking out about this. I was afraid of what was going to happen to my son. I knew for a long time that they were trying to push this whole mandatory vaccination thing, but that was the thing that was really sticking to my, like, they're going to really try and ram through a mandatory vaccination. 

I didn't think they were going to start with all the masks, social distancing and all these things. And when I started realizing the impact that was having on him just going to school, I think they quickly shut the school down. It was in March of 2020, like mid March, and they shut the school down. But then I was afraid what would happen when he had to go back to school. 

I was completely against masks. I wasn't going to let myself wear a mask. It wasn't going to let my son wear a mask, and we weren't going to social distance. So basically, anywhere we went, I would get stopped and they would say, where's your mask? And so I'm not going to wear one. And luckily, in Iowa, we could say, if you have a health condition, you didn't have to wear a mask or you didn't have to go along with the program. 

So I was pretty lucky in that regard. But that was driving. I saw all these different restrictions that they were putting on. People at the local Walmart were the gates or something. It was almost like when you see a post apocalyptic movie and no cars, but like tapes and chains and stuff everywhere, like directing people where to go. That's what it looked like to me. I was like, oh, I don't like the way this is going. 

This is scary. This is not the future I want for my son, and it's not what I want for everyone else's children or for themselves. And so that's what really I started doing these posts just basically talking about the different articles that I would see popping up on the mainstream media. They became the uncovering the corona fraud series on my substac. So I've used that just because I'm trying to document what I did before I started doing these kind of deep dives into virology. 

But then people started asking me a lot of questions. And I'm like, I can explain this stuff, but why not just write it all down? Why not have it in one place where it's easy to find people can get this information while I'm learning? I wanted to make sure that I had this information stored not only for myself, so I can pull it up, but other people could do it at the same time. 

So the pandemic, I think for all of us, it kind of forced us into action because we didn't like where this was going. And so even though I had this knowledge, I didn't have that desire to really speak out until they started taking away and restricting things. And it was going to affect my son. And I'll be honest, you guys helped inspire me, too. Like your videos, I started seeing you speak out. 

I knew of Mark. You started speaking out more later on. And then I was like, yes, this is awesome. The dynamic I'd see, you know, Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan speaking out. I'm like, all these people are saying the same things that I had come to know and realized through my own research. And so I was really nervous. I think I was even talking to some of my friends at the time when I did virology, when I created the website, I was really nervous going out there. 

I'm like, am I going to have a target on me? Because I knew what they were doing to you guys. I'm like, do I want this target on me? But they're like, you need to get out there. You need to put this stuff out there. You're better just making yourself known. And I think about six months into doing the site, Dr. Cowan had reached out and had requested doing an interview with me. 

And I was like, I had people requesting interviews prior to that, but I kept saying, no, I don't want to do that. I don't want to put my face out there. I'm really good about typing in the background, but I don't need people seeing me. And I hate how I sound when I talk anyways because it's much easier for me to talk or to write what I want to say than it is to speak and say what I want to say. 

So I was really nervous about getting out there. But then when Dr. Cowan's asking you to do an interview, I'm like, I can't turn him down. I got to say yes to this. So once I said yes to that, I'm like, I got to start doing interviews with everyone else, too. And I think around that same time, Mark, is when you had reached out to me, I think it was like December, is it in November or December of 2021 or something? And my memory might be off, but it was somewhere. 

I just remember I'm like, holy crap, Mark Bailey's reaching out to me. This is pretty exciting. And so you guys helped to give me the motivation to get out there more and try to share this information. So I really am appreciative of that. Yeah, well, like you, Mike, I was kind of content to be in the background because in the early 2000s, I'd had a sports career and I was used to doing the whole thing with magazines and promotions and I had companies that sponsored me and stuff. 

So I was used to doing that kind of stuff. And when Sam had her channel going in early 2020, he didn't want to steal my thunder. Well, there were a number of things I thought. One, the audience has built up their trust with Sam, and she hasn't mentioned me at that stage in early 2020. And I said, sam said, can you get involved with the channel? And I said, I don't know if that's a good idea because they know you. 

And then if I suddenly appear, it might not. I didn't know what that would look like. But it was interesting because we met a New Zealand documentary and filmmaker who came and saw us, and he vaguely knew that I existed but didn't know much about me. He talked to us for a couple of hours and then said to me, you have got to get out there, basically, because the world wants to see that you and Sam are in sync with this stuff and that you're doing this as a couple. 

And he was the one that suggested getting out on camera. And like you, initially, I was like, oh, I'm happy just doing the writing and research in the background. But it was funny, too, because I think the first time I appeared on camera with the virology stuff was in the viral delusion with Mike Wallach. I've never watched myself in that because I'm too like you. I'm like, I don't want to have a. 

Can't even watch the end of COVID stuff I did. I'm like, no, I'll watch this one, guys, but I'm not going to be liking to watch. It's always better than you think. And I remember, so Mike Wallach interviewing me, and he just goes, yeah, talk about how know produce these genomes and the PCR and stuff. And I'm just chatting to him and he's going, well, this is fascinating. 

And he wanted to talk to me for hours and hours. And he said, yeah, this is great. Just keep talking. And I was like, yeah, my first interview was about two and a half hours because Mike wanted to get heaps of different takes for it or just have me reword it a little bit more clearly for the audience. That was interesting. And then with you, it would have been 2021, because what had happened was that Sam and I would have a plan for kind of the week about which topic we'd do. 

And it was really funny in 2021, because I'd go, Mike Stones just put out one that we were about to do. I'm like, going, oh, so I was stealing your thunder. In other words, I'm sorry. And I thought to myself, I've got to start communicating with Mike more often so we can kind of. Because initially I thought, oh, maybe we should just cover different topics and stuff. And then I realized, no, there is such a demand for this stuff. 

And we realized that there was a real synergy between the Dr. Sam Bailey channel and virology. And as you know, and your love, I still love your titles that you come up with. I'm like, this is brilliant. And I think it's the traffic. They share. So much traffic. Two sites. We were referencing your work and you were referencing our work, and people were going back and forth. And that's why it's funny, I say, because we don't appear on camera much together, but we've actually been in synergy for a long time. 

And the other thing I was going to say, mike, about why people, we'll talk about the psyop thing, but the reason people might think you're a psyop is that, to me, when I first met you personally, it was like meeting Lou Rockwell. And you probably know Lou Rockwell from the Measles Institute. He's a very prominent libertarian. If you read Lou's articles and his books, it's just devastating. He absolutely hammers it when he's going after these fraudulent economists and government policies and stuff. 

But then when you meet Lou in real life, he is such a soft spoken, mild mannered, and just gentle and lovely, and you'd never think that these words would come out of his pen. And you're exactly the same. In 2016, we traveled to Alabama to meet Lou, and he was just so amazing. Like, the institute had set up accommodation. They put us up for free with accommodation and looked after us. 

The staff members were taking us out around the city and taking us out for lunches and stuff. They didn't need to do any of it because Sam had organized it for my birthday. Anyway, when I first talked to you, because I didn't even think Mike Stone was your real name, I thought, clever. It does kind of sound like a fake name, doesn't it? Like a pseudo. It's like Rocky Balboa or something like this. 

It's fight night. And then I'm like, start talking to you. And I'm like, oh, my goodness, that's your name. And you're this absolute humanitarian father, and you're just looking out for the best for people and stuff. So I think that's why people, I mean, the whole psyops thing is just ridiculous in itself. And it seems to be an argument that people try and slip into when they're not able to deal with the arguments that we're presenting. 

Yeah, and they're trying to shut down just freedom, basically just expressing this information. They're talking about freedom, health, freedom, but they want to shut down a certain argument and they're trying to equate it with the whole flat earth thing. Like, oh, if you're no virus, then you're no better than a flat earther and stuff like that, which is, I think, is completely beside the point. They're conflating two different things. 

And that's the problem, is they don't really reach out to anyone within this community. Every person I've talked to either on Twitter and everything, they have just like a vague general idea of what we're saying, but they're way off. I've talked to people like Derek Bros and Chris sky was the most recent one, and they are going attacking us as a psyop, but they don't even know our position and they really don't even know their own position. 

That's what's been kind of shocking to me is like when you try to argue with them about the science behind it or what the studies actually show, they don't really even know. It's pretty mind blowing that they then formulate an opinion on what we're saying without doing the necessary research to see if what we're saying has any merit. They don't care. And like you said, you reach out to them, they have no interest. 

I think at one point, Derek Bros had said he wanted to potentially do an interview with me. I've never heard anything since. And we were going to try know discuss the topic and clear up any sort of confusion he had on it, but nothing ever came about from that. And I mean, we get similar silly stuff. Obviously, we're not on those many of the platforms to interact with these people, but we get people emailing Sam or the website and it'll be along the lines of, I'm an expert in x, Y and Z, and I've worked with viruses for the last 15 years at this institute. 

And I can say that I can refute Mark Bailey's essay, a farewell to virology, which is 29,000 words. I mean, do they want us to take this seriously? If you want to refute something, you provide a written response. And refuting an essay like a farewell minimum, I'd expect someone to write 4000 words to combat the main principles that have been brought up there. And it's the same with HIV, a virus like no other. 

You see these ridiculous comments saying, oh, it's the work of pseudoscience. You say, well, which bit the whole thing. Well, no, they actually quite clearly show you that there were no control experiments done. So shall we talk about that? No. Here's a paper which shows controls were done. And you go, no, they said they did controls, but let's talk about the nature of what they actually did. And I think I remember your article about Jeremy Hammond. 

I think, and I think you'd had an interaction with him. And again, it was like, I don't think you guys even got past what a control experiment was by the looks of it. No, just a circular argument where we were talking about purification and isolation, I believe, for most of our discussion. But he just kept going back to, oh, you're not arguing in good faith. If you don't answer my question, then we can't respond. 

He kept wanting me to. Oh, yeah. No, I had to agree with his position in Order for him to carry on talking with me. He's like, yeah, we'll talk about this stuff, but first agree with this. That's not how it works. I'm not going to agree with what your position is on purification isolation, and we're debating purification isolation. You don't agree with your opponent and then talk about it. 

It was just so stupid. But I was one arguing in bad faith. That guy drove me crazy. No, and it's like you say, with all of these guys, we can't even get past the basics. And they don't seem to have a position about, can we agree by all historical accounts of what a control experiment is, what independent variables are, what dependent variables are, how you control for that? And we can't even get past that with these people. 

And the other one we see obviously is the shotgun argumentation where I don't know if you saw the written debate that I had with Zachary Ardern a couple of years back. He worked at the Sanger Institute. I think it was. He knew a lot about sequencing, but obviously we're interested in what happens in the wet. What is the technique? How do you show the provenance of the genetic sequences? And I would just refute him point by point. 

And then he'd just start a new argument. He'd go, oh, yeah. And then he wouldn't even actually acknowledge that we'd just had a discussion. He'd just go and throw a new paper. Go, well, here's ont sequencing. And that shows longer sequences than next generation sequencing does. And I said, but we haven't resolved. Yeah, they like to Elphin Earl links left and right. That's one of my pet peeves, is when people just start throwing study after study after study. 

Oh, yeah. Well, this shows isolation. This shows you guys didn't even read these studies. Don't sit there and throw links at me. If you're going to give me a study, then show me where you think that they purified and isolated a virus. Don't just sit there and say, this study does it, because then every time I open it up, I look in it, the evidence is not there. 

And then they're like, oh, yeah, well, this one does. Like, well, why'd you throw out that first one if you're not going to look and debate it? And then throw out another one on top of me? Don't just give me piles and piles of studies. Actually show me that you know what you're talking about, and then we can discuss that study. But they don't want to. They don't want to discuss these things in finer detail. 

They just want to say, look, this is what the title says. This is the abstract. It's done. It's science. It's 100 years of science, and you're going against it. So now you present me with an alternate theory because it's proven. It's just ridiculous. You can't have a conversation with these. And I mean, before I had that debate with Kevin McKeown, I didn't know Kevin, and unfortunately, Tim truth, who organized it, I think he had really good intentions about the debate. 

And I thought, oh, this is great. We've finally got someone who wants to discuss the methods of the virologists. But even before the debate started, Tim had sent us out information that we were copied in together about how the debate would run. Et cetera. And when it would happen and before it even started, Kevin starts sending me these snarky emails insinuating various things about me. And I was like, shouldn't we keep it to the topic? I thought we were discussing the methodologies of virology and whether or not they can show that a particle of term SARS cob two exists and causes disease. 

But he was straight away, before it even started, I said to Sam, I don't think this is going to be a proper event. And it just deteriorated into insults and ad hominem attacks left and right. I remember that debate. That one's pretty vivid. It was brutal. You did awesome. You held your own completely. I mean, you made him look foolish. Yeah, well, anyone knows that. If it comes to trying to ruffle me, that's really hard to do in person and online. 

And I think there was someone that said after the debate that they said, bailey, you could have just said nothing and virology would have sunk itself once Kevin opened his mouth. But, yeah, it is disappointing. And I know you've had a number of online, I don't know if you want to call them debates, tussles, whatever. And I mean, pretty much from 2020. Sam disengaged from that because when her YouTube channel was not initially censored, the number of comments was in the tens of thousands, obviously. 

And there were people, she gets so many comments on her platform, she can't possibly look at them all. And initially, you would respond to people who would email personally, but then you'd usually get a sense within the first sentence whether they were actually genuine or not because that's kind of. Sorry. What I wanted to also talk about was your recent article that you did. Was it called the hunt about the divisions within kind of these same, you feel like the people should be on your same side and then really start attacking you. 

Could you talk a little bit about what you wrote and what your thoughts are? Well, yeah, that article really came about because of this. I was invited into a telegram group that was made up of some people. I didn't really want to go into detail on their names and everything. I don't want to call anyone out, but some people that were very much, they're on the no virus, for lack of better term, team. 

They understand the issues with virology and stuff like that. But they are going after people within who are speaking out, like you guys, the Baileys. They're going after the Baileys. They're going after Dr. Cowan, Dr. Kaufman, anyone that they see that they don't agree with 100% or they might see one of the things that they were attacking Dr. Cowan for was the water wand, I think, or something like that that he sells. 

I don't even know what that's about, but it's kind of ridiculous just finding one little thing to then say, don't promote Dr. Cowan. He's off the table. He's a grifter or controlled opposition. He's got ulterior motives. His work should be promoted. And they did that with you guys based on an old vitamin D video that you had put out. And I'm like, that's like way back in 2020. 

And I know from watching you guys that you don't promote or utilize supplements like that anymore and stuff like that. So why are you attacking them based on an old video with, I think they were attacking you, too, on a promo code as well, or some sort of for the supplement and trying to basically say that you're a part of the pharmaceutical industry promoting supplements. And the big thing with the vitamin D was that it was rat poison. 

You're convincing people to do rat poison even though your whole video before that was like, don't do supplements if you have to. This is what you can do. Get it naturally as much as possible. I don't do this. I was experimenting with this. But this is what you can do if you want to study, show the safety. But no, it became, the Baileys are promoting rat poison. They want people to take rat poison. 

Don't follow them, don't share their stuff. And to just, it's ridiculous. It's creating division. They didn't even reach out to you. And, I mean, that's why I wrote to Mark, just asking for a statement on this, because I'm like, I need to shut this down. These people are just, it seemed to me, like I said, that's why I titled the hunt. They were going after people who they had just any sort of slight disagreement with that was not on the same page. 

And they weren't even reaching out to you guys. They weren't reaching out to Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Cowan, anyone to get a statement. And it was just like, okay, we're done associating with them. We're going to put this out there, that they're controlled opposition or they're grifters or whatever it is. And to me, I understand there's a lot of fear and there's a lot of distrust out there right now. 

But if you're going to make an accusation, at least communicate with the people that you're accusing first, try to get a statement, try to see if there's a disagreement, where there is a disagreement and how it can be resolved. Don't just go and start accusing people of having ulterior motives. It's just ridiculous. And with all the work that you guys have done, your work speaks for itself. Just the amount of amazing content you put out, just exposing the fraud of virology and the allopathic model, it's just frustrating that they will use one old video to then disregard everything else that you guys have done. 

So I saw this pattern emerge, and that's why I wrote that article, because we have to get to a point where we can have these conversations and we don't have to all be on agree 100% on every single thing. That's unrealistic. You can find something that you disagree with anyone on just about anything. That doesn't mean you have to shut them down and not promote them or say that they've got these ulterior motives and they're out to get you, selling you rat poison and things like that. 

It just blew my mind, the ways that they were trying to take you guys down. It was just ridiculous. Yeah, it's funny because we were talking about this last night, actually, about the parallels of control, where it's almost like. Exactly, because it was like, take down your video, which is exactly what the Medical Council of New Zealand did. The government were trying to do was they're trying to control what I say back in 2020, what videos I could make, what I could talk about. 

And that you have to speak a certain narrative if you don't. And apparently they're the police now. Yeah, it was kind of funny. We were like, what, take down the video? We're like, we haven't heard this since 2020. And it was coming literally from our totalitarian government that was pushing the tyranny on the New Zealand population. So, yeah, we get the same because Sam and I, look, we live in a community like you do, where most people believe in viruses, and yet we interact with people we can't say to them on meeting everyone we meet in a day to day life, do you believe in viruses? You're not in the club. 

Get out and base it on that. And it's not going to associate with anymore. Yeah, we have really good friends who, they've been around us for years. They've read virus mania and stuff, and yet they'll still be in conversation and go something like, oh, I picked up a bug recently. And then there's this kind of quiet in the room. And then they're like, what's your position on that again? And we're like, yeah, we don't believe that, but that's fine. 

You go on, yeah, we're the same. I think it's looking at the bigger picture and understanding that you're in a community and there's lots of different beliefs, and I think the best way is to approach it with compassion and knowing that we're all at different stages. Because, like you, at one point in time, Sam and I thought that vaccinating the kids was a good idea. And we openly, we admit that. 

I know Andy Kaufman, he admits the same. We're not saying that we always knew this. Right know, the time we were kids, because we, you know, I think you've got to give people time to come around to these things. And people are all on different pathways. Some people wake up really quickly, and some people, it takes a bit longer. That's what they don't seem to understand. It's almost like an all or nothing principle. 

Like, you either completely agree with us or you're against us. They don't realize that everyone's at a different stage as far as what they're believing in and what they're comfortable accepting. And just because you believe one thing now doesn't mean you won't come to that position later. But the way that they've been approaching this is very off putting. And I've seen amazing Polly, I don't know if you guys have heard of. 

Yeah. Someone had alerted me to, was on Twitter, like a post, and I just saw a lot of the same people on this woman's page just hurling insults at her and saying, well, if you believe in viruses, then you're against us and all this stuff. And someone had, they said some really mean things, like about her gender and stuff like that. I won't repeat here, but it was basically really bad personal attacks. 

And to me, if I'm someone on the outside looking in, and so I might be kind of on the fence, maybe I'm questioning this whole Covid or the plant pandemic, but I'm not really at the point to say viruses don't exist, but I'm curious about it. I start seeing the no virus people just going after anyone and attacking them and hurling insults and stuff like that. That would turn me off of that argument right away. 

So to me, it's hurting our position more than it's helping. I understand what they're trying to do. They want to get people up to speed and they have a sense of urgency. They're afraid something's going to happen down the road, but their approach is not good. You're going to turn people off. You're going to turn them away from wanting to listen to what we have to say. And so I always try to come from, like you said, a place of compassion and understanding. 

Even if people don't agree with me, we can talk about these things, we can discuss them, and we can be respectful, we can remain respectful. We can have an honest dialogue, because once it starts becoming about insults and accusations, that just shuts down and you chance an honest discourse. So I think in the end, it's going to hurt us more than it helps. Yeah. Have you found Mike, too, with the censorship? What's been the worst part? Was it when you were on Facebook, or has it been what's affected your censorship? Oh, yeah. 

Facebook was by far the worst because basically, like I said, anytime I mentioned anything against the PCR, it was almost an automatic ban. Actually, after the testing pandemic article got me a 30 day ban, I believe it was on both my accounts. Almost at the same time, I ended up going through and I did an article, I think it was like 20 undeniable facts about PCR. And it was literally just straight from their sources, just fact after fact, showing all the problems with PCR. 

And so they couldn't sit there and say, oh, this guy is going out here and this is his opinion. Literally, it was just 20 different things from their literature. And that got me a ban. They said I was false, misleading information. I'm like, this is your information. How is it misleading? I'm showing it to you guys. So, yeah, Facebook was really bad. PCR, vaccines, anything about that would automatically get you. 

Since then, within the last year, it's loosened up quite a bit. But I know when I first started doing my blog, anytime someone would try to share an article of mine from virology, either they couldn't share it or they'd get a warning like, oh, this site is new. Are you sure you want to share this information? You can click back if you want to. I was against Twitter. 

I always hated Twitter, and I reluctantly made the plunge into Twitter in 2022. Like, the end of the year, I had some friends that were involved in some Twitter battles and the whole virus community I knew, kind of like what I was getting into. I was hoping it wasn't going to be that way, but almost immediately, people just started ganging up on me and going after everything I post. 

But I haven't really been censored as much on Twitter, but I do notice a lot of shadow banning your post will. No one will see them or they'll be like, hey, why haven't you posted in a while? I'm like, I have. They're just not going to you for whatever reason, you're not seeing them. And I've seen that on both Facebook and Twitter, but those are pretty much the only social media that I'm on. 

I'm also on Telegram, but I haven't seen any censorship on Telegram. Yeah. To me, Twitter looks like a complete waste of time because, as you know, when you're trying to explain these things, you can't do it in one or two sentences. And I know that's what our friend Steve Kersch wants, because Steve won't read a farewell to virology he's a good friend of. Instead, he requested, I think it was Andy. 

Tom and I were supposed to produce a ten minute presentation for him about why viruses don't exist. And we're like, okay, but what about all the other work we've done? Can't we present that? And I think Twitter, it's even worse. It will say something like, antivaxxers better explain this outbreak in whatever city in 2015 and do like a picture of a kid with a rash or something. And that's supposed to be the argument there. 

And we're sitting there going, do you want to talk about how they supposedly diagnose measles? Should we talk about the measles vaccine? Should we talk about the epidemiology of this? Should we talk about what actually happened during that quoted out? I mean, there's so many aspects to it. As you know, you have to sometimes spend quite a few hours going through the background material for it, but they'll present that to you. 

Or the classic, as you know, we even have a video now called what about rabies? They don't seem to realize that is one of the worst examples they could possibly imagine to produce, and yet it's because they are simply not aware of the historical elements and the pseudoscience involved. And also to use a condition that is one of the rarest known to mankind that most people have no experience with it. 

99. 9% of doctors never even touch it in their lifetime. Whatever this condition is. I find the whole thing with that social media stuff is that, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a tweet where I've said, well, that's a life changing tweet right there. Whereas it's different when you read a viral IG article because now you understand. What do they mean when they said they isolated the influenza virus? You have to read through the process, which is why you'll see these kind of, I don't know if you get that, but you might get off the cuff comments to you saying, yeah, well, I've worked on these wards for 15 years. 

What would you know? Oh, yeah, I get the genetic fallacy all the time. What do you know? You're just a personal trainer. I'm like, I'm not a personal trainer anymore. That was a long time ago. It'd be more accurate to call me a health coach if you're going to label me. But yeah, they'll be like, oh, you don't know what you're talking about. You've never worked in a lab. 

I'm like, well, I was an exercise science major. I did do lab work in my courses, but I'm not going to sit there and say, I'm a scientist. Yeah, I'm not going around and doing that. But the problem is they don't believe, I don't know if it's a lack of confidence in their own abilities to understand this stuff, but they don't believe that someone outside of the field can actually learn from the methods and read the materials and learn it for themselves. 

And you can. That's the thing. If I'm proud of anything that I can kind of be known for is that I'm not a doctor. I'm not a medical, I'm not a virologist, I'm not a scientist in a traditional sense. I'm just a regular person. And I did understand, I did learn this stuff just by reading their own materials. And I learned from Dr. Lanka, the Perth group, David Crowe and all these people that came before. 

But if I can learn this stuff, anyone can learn it. It just takes time and dedication and patience to actually go through and read the materials and learn it. But you get that all the time. You get the genetic fallacy or the appeals to credentials like, well, you think you know better than all these doctors and the scientists. I'm like, no, I don't think I know better. I just don't think they're looking at it. 

Clearly. They've had a lot of financial investment. This is their career. Not only that, they've been to schooling, which has kind of put this into, I hate to use the word indoctrination, but that's basically what it is. You're sold a story and this is what you're told to believe and you don't question that. A lot of people, what I've noticed, and I've seen this, even with my son just going to school, they don't teach critical thinking and logic anymore. 

And people have that kind of pushed out of them. They don't really know how to look at these things outside of the paradigm and to examine things, to step outside and say, okay, yeah, I do believe this, but let me look at the other side and see if there's merit towards that argument. Does it make sense? Is it logical? They don't want to critically examine the beliefs that they hold. 

It's easier just to hold on to those beliefs. And it's painful. There's a cognitive dissonance that goes along with uncovering this. I don't know. It was painful for me when I started learning about this. It was just HIV. I'm like, oh, yeah, HIV doesn't exist, but all the others exist, of course. But then as I started thinking about that doesn't make any sense. If these procedures didn't work for HIV, if they didn't actually purify and isolate the virus, they didn't do proper controls and all this stuff, then how do I know that they did that for the other viruses? So that curiosity, you have to have a sense of curiosity and then start looking into this, know really going through the methods and understanding what they did or didn't do. 

And most of these people that sit there and use these logical fallacies, that's the main thing that you see on Twitter when you get into Twitter debate, is just logical fallacy after logical fallacy. They don't really want to actually debate the points that you bring up. They'll just look for an excuse to try and clamp down and say, you're a liar, that's false, you're not telling the truth, because they don't want to actually look at it themselves. 

Another thing I'm really interested in over the last three or four years, what do you think has been your biggest kind of aha moment or thing that you've learned? That was, I suppose, post your mother in law passing away. I think one of the biggest things that kind of really opened my eyes was so as this was happening, as I was looking into cell cultures and I started breaking down the old virus papers, I still had this belief in the immune system and antibodies. 

And that, to me, when I started questioning, because as this kept going on, people would talk about herd immunity. Oh, herd immunity is going to come. Well, no. Then herd immunity wasn't a thing. It became like this back and forth. Were we going to reach herd immunity or not? And were these vaccines going to be able to bruise an antibody response? And were those antibodies going to be able to protect everyone the way that they're supposed to? Or are you going to have to need boosters and all that fun stuff? And I think I started questioning the idea of antibodies with HIV because it's the exact opposite. 

If you get a positive antibody test, that means you're infected, whereas for every other virus, that means you're protected. So it just didn't really make much sense to me. And so I remember I was in this group that David Crowde set up called infectious myth. And a lot of these Facebook posts were posts that I was doing for them, and I was kind of doing my own research, but I wanted to share it with this group because we were all learning together. 

And I remember being encouraged to look into antibodies. And that to me, when I found this history of antibody timeline and I went through that, I'm like, oh, I need to go through each moment in this timeline and see how they came up with this idea of antibodies. And that, to me was mind blowing because I still thought, well, viruses don't exist, but antibodies, this whole idea of immune system must actually exist. 

Even though I understood train theory, I still had this idea that the immune system existed in the sense of you could gain immunity like you're somehow bulletproof to these things. Now, then I started investigating. I went from the 18, I think it was 1890s, with von baring, I think was the guy's name, with his initial, I believe it was diphtheria that he was looking into. And each of these moments in the history of antibody creation or the formation of this concept, I realized that antibodies, it's the same fraud as virology. 

It's this idea, this concept existed, and they had nothing. They literally had no idea what they were doing, just some experiments and effects that they were seeing in a lab. And then they said that lock and key mechanism of these little particles that could come in and do all this. And I realized that they had nothing. They're taking fluids from outside the body and then doing these experiments and taking, like you said, animal blood and human blood, mixing them together. 

And somehow that's supposed to reflect what actually happens within a living human being. It makes absolutely no sense. And so that was what really blew my mind. As I started going through these antibodies and you start seeing that there was like five or six different theories on how they created. I wouldn't even say theories, they're more like hypotheses. They were guessing as to how these things looked, formed and functioned. 

They didn't really have the evidence, they just created a model. And whoever had the best model, like they would have one at one time, someone else would have. No, that one doesn't work. Here's another model that would stand for a little bit and another would be like, no, that's not how it works. This is how it works. It wasn't really based on solid scientific evidence. It was just who had the better story. 

So that's what I realized. Just the idea of antibodies, if you can blow that up and you blow immunity, I mean, not only can you attack them from the fact that they have no scientific evidence supporting pathogenic viruses, but the whole concept of antibodies in the immune system is deeply flawed as well. And so there goes vaccines. Right know you don't have a virus you need to protect them from. 

And the antibody responses are non specific and don't really mean anything. Mike, another thing that impressed me, or has impressed me with your work has been how you've seen straight through the problems of clinical diagnostics. Because we find that particularly with people who come from outside the system, there's a black box to them. And they think that the doctor is really highly trained to diagnose these various entities. 

And you see this a lot, the mistakes when you're having debates with people who work in laboratories or work in genetics and stuff. And they think that CT scans and doctors examinations and hospitals somehow have this remarkable ability to put a diagnosis on someone, whether it's Covid-19 smallpox, chickenpox. And I was really impressed because there's only been a few people that I've seen who have done it as well as you. 

John Rappaport was onto this 1987 with AIDS Inc. Yeah. Roman bistrianic, from dissolving illusions. He's right onto this. He's very perceptive about how diagnostics actually work and whether you can even trust statistics that are presented to you that are based on clinical diagnostics. And you've done some fantastic articles, I think, and one was just saying, well, here's some photographs of chickenpox, monkey pox, smallpox. And I don't know that any doctor in the world, if they were asked to look at those, would know which was which. 

And it's completely true because when you're in the system, a doctor will make a diagnosis. It's not only based on what they see in front of them, it's based on what information's coming at them from the CDC or the Ministry of Health, which may be that, or be on the lookout for measles, because we're seeing lots of it at the moment. What they've seen recently themselves, your pay, it's so dependent. 

I remember this as a doctor. The patients that you've seen previously, we never saw cases of, is it Rocky spotted mountain fever? Because it doesn't exist in New Zealand. They'd call that chronic fatigue or something else. And it's a different. It's like Mark says, it's really insightful. Have you always seen through that, the diagnosis problem? I don't know. That's a good question. I think it was with COVID where I started questioning it, because I saw that it ranged from no symptoms at all all the way to death, pneumonia, death, and it run the gamut. 

They were putting in frostbite as a Covid toes. And I saw that a lot of the. What was it called? Misc, I think is what it was called. They were lumping basically the symptoms from Kawasaki disease as Covid. And I started realizing, like, how can they even diagnose what is Covid because it has so many symptoms. It's just basically everything altogether. And I think with HIV, too, I knew that it's a syndrome. 

They're taking all these unrelated disease and they put it under umbrella. And basically they could call you an HIV AIDS case based on whether you had certain symptoms. And so I believe, if I remember correctly, the smallpox. When I was looking into smallpox was when I really started understanding the fact that they can't diagnose these clinically. They have the differential diagnosis where they have a list of all these similar conditions that can have the exact same symptoms that you have to look for. 

Like you said, they'll alert you and say, like, hey, be on the lookout for measles. If you see this, make sure you include that as a possibility, and maybe they'll test for you with the laboratory test. But I think I just did a tweet yesterday about this, where I saw an article. I think it was Frank Fenner. He wrote a virology textbook. In it, they said that basically all viral diseases cannot be diagnosed clinically. 

They have to be diagnosed based on a laboratory test. And then within the same paragraph, they're like, but there's exceptions. Like, if smallpox was around and everyone's suffering from smallpox, well, then the CDC would give people pictures of what smallpox look like, and then they could clinically diagnose them. Like, well, how if you look at smallpox, it runs the same symptoms as chickenpox, monkeypox, and measles, rubella, all these different viruses that they have to look at, and then immediately right after that. 

But most of the time, nearly every single time, the virus cannot be diagnosed clinically. It has to be based on a laboratory test. So, you know, they can't tell these things apart based on the symptoms alone. They've got too many different overlapping diseases that have the exact same symptoms. And even if they try to say that there's a specific symptom that highlights one, you can look through the literature, and I swear you're going to find, like, if they say the coplic spots only occurs in measles, well, you can find those in other cases. 

You might even find them in chickenpox or anything else, and they'll be like, well, there goes the specificity of that symptom. Same with rabies. The Negri bodies, they looked at brain tissues, and they see these negrobodies. And that's specific for rabies. So that's how we diagnose rabies. But then you can find that in other cases, people that weren't sick with rabies or other diseases. So it's not specific. 

They don't have these specific any way that you can not only clinically diagnose them, but even some of the laboratory methods that they have are nonspecific. So I started questioning all that. Doctors become so reliant on the investigations because usually they'll see a patient and think, oh, it could be this, could be that, or come up with a differential diagnosis, and then they think, we used to think this, too. 

Look, 20 years ago or 15 years ago, when we'd send a blood test to the laboratory, and we thought they were doing viral serology and stuff, and then the test comes back and it says positive or negative, and you're like, sweet, there's the diagnosis. But we knew nothing about how these tests were validated. And as you know, when it comes to antibodies, they're not a yes no thing. 

They're teeters that they do. They're concentrations. So in all of these studies, they're not saying whether the antibody is present or not, whatever they think that is. They're just saying that there's a certain concentration, at which point they cut it off. And as you know, with HIV, initially, they set the cut offs in a place where everybody was testing positive. And Stefan anchors talked about this before, in the 1990s, and then they had to recalibrate the whole test. 

And I say recalibrate, because that's what they were doing. They weren't validating it. They had no validity whatsoever, but they recalibrated it so that only a certain amount of their blood donors, whatever they were testing, would come back with positive. So, yeah, I would say that doctors have way too much faith in investigations, and they feel like, get a ct scan of the lungs or a blood test, and that will reveal all. 

And as we all know, it's a waste of time. That's what I've noticed with a lot of these tests. They're not really validating them or testing them with people that are healthy half the time, too. Like the PCR test for Covid, it's clearly picking up healthy people. That's with all these asymptomatic cases. I mean, the vast majority, I think, was in Shanghai. There's like over 92% of the people that when they were doing this mass testing, were coming up positive and they had no symptoms whatsoever. 

And so they released these tests out. I think they were on emergency use authorization, so they didn't really have to go through the stringent protocols that they would to normally validate these tests. But even if you go back before that, any virus test, you would have to actually have the purified, isolated virus in order to calibrate and validate that test, too. And that's why you can tell that they are fraudulent, because they've never had that to do that with. 

So they don't have the pregnant woman to validate and calibrate that test with. Exactly. And I think with the PCR, one of the easiest things for people to understand, because people obviously do claim within the medical system that the PCR is a clinical diagnostic tool. And you can point out to them and say, okay, if a woman's pregnant, we can do a urine pregnancy test on them, and we know that's valid whether she's pregnant or not with the PCR. 

So if we apply that to someone, they're saying that it diagnoses a condition that they're calling Covid-19 so they say it diagnoses the state of the person's health, if you like. But we can show them that you can test a tennis ball or an orange, and that comes back positive. Do we then say that the tennis ball or the orange has come down with Covid-19 and what is the explanation here that they have? Because we're not denying that it may amplify target genetic sequences. 

We're just saying, well, what's the relevance of that? Because when we take a validated test back to the pregnancy test, we know that if you test tennis balls, unless a woman's just peed on the tennis ball, it's not testing positive. The tennis ball is probably not going to pull up pregnant. No, the testing stuff, I think once people get the testing problem, they understand that pandemics are invented out of thin air. 

What was it? I think it was in 2006, the whooping cough incident. I can't remember whatever college it was, but it was a complete 100% false positive pandemic. What was it for? Whooping cough. Right. That right there should have sent red flags off to anyone who understood PCR, that they can create a pandemic however they want just using that technology. There's definitely a lot of problems, but that's kind of what I was getting at, is if you can't diagnose someone clinically based on just symptoms alone, and you're relying on these fraudulent tests, there's some pretty massive problems there as far as trying to claim a cause based on just these tests. 

What's the state at the moment where you are, like, in the US? What's the kind of know? Because there's sort of these whispers with COVID coming back, and I can't kind of keep up with all the different pandemics that are coming out. What's the feeling on the ground there? I think, luckily, I'm in Iowa, so we're pretty laid back. We don't have a whole lot of people masking up anymore. 

You see them every once in a while. I think I just had a pizza delivery guy the other day with the mask on. I'm like, come on. It blew my mind that the guy came in with the mask. He didn't even come in. He just handed me the box. I'd already paid for it. But I was like, I don't see that very often around here, so I don't think people are as concerned. 

And I know they're trying to make everyone afraid of not only Covid coming back, but then you get the flu. You've got RSV, the human meta pneumono virus or whatever. So they're trying to keep people on their toes as far as what's coming going. I've also even seen, I think it. Was it yellow fever or something. I can't remember. No, it was dengue. I think they're talking about coming into the. 

Like, they're talking about these diseases or these viruses know, you wouldn't see over in our country. And now they're like, uh oh, we've detected a case down in Florida, so people be on the lookout. And then when you look, it's the exact same symptoms, but know a different name applied to. I don't, as far as I'm aware. I don't think people are as. It's not like it was early on in the pandemic. 

People aren't as terrified as they used to be, which is a good thing. But then, at the same time, it makes me believe eventually they're going to throw something at us to try and amp up that fear, because they're always going to want to sell these vaccines anytime you see a new virus that they're throwing out there, like RSV, when that became the big thing, what was it, a year or two ago? Well, lo and behold, they had the rsv vaccine that was in development at the time. 

And anyone that was over 60 or pregnant, you should go get your RSv vaccine. And then they had one, I think, for Marburg virus that they're working on. I don't know, you always see, like, whenever they announce the virus coming up, there's some sort of vaccine in the pipeline that's going to come out within a few months to a year. So they're preparing them for this to run out and roll up their sleeves, basically. 

Yeah, definitely. And I think a lot of people panic that the vaccines are designed to do all sorts of things, whether it's nanotech or killing people off. We investigate everything. We don't rule anything out. And we've been back to white papers from the 1930s showing that the Rockefeller Institute, among others, did work on this, was an idea of theirs, was to reduce the population through vaccines, through sterility. 

And we know that they've done this before in human populations, particularly in. Yeah, yeah. Sam's got a video about anti fertility. Know, some people think, oh, that's just a conspiracy theory and stuff. No, it's an actual conspiracy that happened empirically. And people can check out that video if they want to see it. But I think aside from all that, and as I say, we don't dismiss because it's very hard to work out what's in vaccines. 

And we've had numerous teams on the ground, even here in New Zealand, trying to privately work out what is in the vaccines. And it's difficult to do, actually. We do know, and you can see it like you're just talking about, is that this is a marketing funnel, basically, it's designed to transfer wealth from an unsuspecting population, because largely now it's not people paying for these things privately. They're taking taxpayer money and channeling it into these research groups and vaccine manufacturers. 

And there's an entire network of them who profit from this. So if people are looking for motives, yes, there could be really nefarious agendas going on with what they're trying to do to humanity. But just as disturbing and just as out in the open is that it's a disgusting business model. We're using dangerous and hopeless products, useless products, for the purposes of just transferring wealth to certain corporations and certain groups. 

And if people realize what just happened with COVID how people in the United States, New Zealand, England, et cetera, were just robbed, basically. So many people lost their livelihoods, they lost their financial situation. Many people lost relationships. Even families broke apart because of this stuff. And with what they lost, it was all transferred to a small group of elites who benefited greatly from the situation. And we only have to look at how many billionaires came out of the last couple of years and going, all right, so they're telling the rest of us that, sorry, guys, the economy is going to be shut down. 

You're all going to have to suffer a bit. Your livelihoods are going to, your freedoms have to be reduced. But at the same time, we had corporations like Pfizer making record profits. People can't see that that is a major driver of the pandemic industry. Because I think sometimes, as you know, people get a little bit too paranoid and think that it's all about a genocide and stuff. And don't get me wrong, we're not denying that these shots have not killed a lot of people and injured many, many more. 

But at the same time, when they've got these pandemic industries, they do want to keep them going. I think there's lots of layers to there's a transfer of wealth. They're keeping us from being able to live comfortably financially, so they're cracking down. It makes you easier to control too. When you're afraid, you're constantly afraid. I believe there definitely probably is some sort of like killing off the weak or the elderly or something like that. 

Maybe in a sense of a depopulation or even with infertility and stuff like that. But I think it goes way beyond that. Just like you said, the transfer of wealth, the ability to control people, to keep us in a perpetual state of fear and sickness. So where we become dependent on the system and it's just a web of lies, but it transfers power to them. Yeah. And that's what I think our goal has been, and I think you've done that beautifully as well, is just to tell people, do not outsource your health to these other groups and these governments, et cetera, that you don't have to fear any of that, that there's no viruses, there's no pathogens, there's no bioweapons in the sense of replicating things that are passing around. 

You don't worry about that. And if you want to be healthy, don't live in fear. Yeah, that's what they want. And that's why it's so frustrating when you see people in the health freedom community that continue to promote these narratives that are based on fear without any actual scientific evidence backing it up, like you talked about with the bioweapon or the vaccine shedding and stuff like that. That's just keeping people in a consistent state of fear. 

And to me, that's definitely the wrong direction. We don't want to keep pushing people towards fear. We want to just make sure that they understand that there's really nothing there that they have to fear and just to live your life and take control back. But also, like you said, not outsourcing your health. Don't outsource your mind. Look into this stuff. Research it for yourself. Don't just trust the experts. 

One of the funniest articles I ever saw was, I think it was a Forbes one, was, don't do your own research. They were trying to argue that people shouldn't go out there and learn for themselves. Don't do that. Don't waste your time. Basically, you're not smart enough to understand. Outsource your brain to the experts. They're the ones who are going to tell you what to think and believe. 

And that's what they, you know, we become a fearful and dumb population that can't do our own thinking, can't do our own research. We just have to listen to what the people on the tv tell us to believe. Mike, you'll laugh at this because we laugh at it, too. We like to laugh at the, quote, authorities. But in 2021, of the charges they tried to bring against Sam, was that she encouraged people to do their own research. 

And the authorities here said that a professional doctor should never say that. And it could cause all, it could cause harm. And we're like, what harm? Like, can you produce any data of harm that people doing their own research have produced? And it is, they have to try and maintain this facade because they don't want to admit that there are so many members of the public now, who know far more than doctors do about virology and vaccines, et cetera, because they've looked into it for themselves and they would show them up badly if they ever got into a discussion about it. 

That's one of the benefits of this whole situation, is I do believe people always ask me, what do you see? Do you think that we're making progress or people waking up? And I really do believe that there's a big group of people that are waking up. And when you go on Twitter, they're always like, no, you're just a fringe group and everything. We might be small, but we're growing. 

I believe every day, new people are waking up this lie, or they're hearing about it for the first time. And that's why it's important to me, just kind of going back to that article I did on the hunt, why it's so important that we present ourselves in a way that we're respectful and engaging people in a way that invites them into learning from us, rather than pushing away through insults and arrogance and attacks. 

Because we need to reach people. We need to get people to learn about this and start researching it for themselves. We can plant the seeds right now, but if we're turning them off, then what's the point? But I do believe we're making progress. Are you a spiritual person, Mike? Yeah, I'd say I am. I have faith, definitely. I believe in God. And I kind of view myself as, like, the eternal optimist. 

I try not to become overly pessimistic. And so a lot of people are like, no, there's nothing happening. You guys aren't making any progress. I'm like, no, I see it. I believe it. I do believe we're making progress, and I believe that good will overcome evil. And I think that's why whenever I see people that are stepping out and creating their own substacks and promoting the narrative, the fraud of biology or germ theory and doing things like that, it's inspiring, and it's uplifting to me to see that normal people are going out there and trying to do their part. 

I have a telegram group where there's some people on there that go into hospitals and talk to nurses and doctors and let them know about this, or they'll print off different flyers and post them around their community and things like that. So it fills me up with a lot of hope. I really do believe that the work that we're doing is making progress, and we're in a better position now than we were back when not even just three years ago. 

But even with the whole rethinking HIV thing, they had a lot of setbacks. And there were, unfortunately, not a lot of people agreeing on the same things. But I think we're now progressing to a point where we are having a consistent message and we're getting out there. So I see progress. Yeah. And I think, Mike, as you know, just as the Perth group and Stefan Lanker and their publications reached you, we were the same. 

I mean, the first thing that came into our household was Torsten Engelbricht and Klaus Conline. And we had their book, and it was just for us, it was a life changer. And we read the book and thought, oh, my goodness. And we started checking the references, went over to the Perth group. I said to Sam, you better sit down. Literally, I think viruses don't exist. And it was because of the Perth group and Torston and Klaus, because they had documented this stuff. 

And I thought, this is actually a really strong case against virology. And of course, that triggered us to do more. So just know you were reached by people that came before us and we were as well. I think we can't underestimate. And I think it's timeless as well. It's like people these days discovering Montague Leveson or know they're writing this stuff, know over a century ago, and people are reading it today, getting know. 

We've learned so much from Ulrich Williams, who was a New Zealand physician last century here. And I know you're writing this book, and I think that's really important because there's a whole lot of stuff, podcasts and videos that go on the Internet and that. But I think books are really eternal. And who knows? Because in 50 years, the world might be going through another wake up situation and someone pulls out your book and goes, whoa, this guy was awake, like 50 years ago. 

Wow, that's amazing. Yeah, because I agree with you. I think the novirus stuff has got such momentum at the moment. And we're hearing from people like Kevin Corbett, who used to say, look, we used to be considered this tiny little fringe. You know, if you went to a meeting and there were a dozen people, that was a good turnout. And now we've had videos that have literally gone into the millions of views and websites are getting millions of hits and stuff. 

So far, more people are aware of this, and I think the cat's out of the bag. I think there's too many of us now doing this and too many people know about it, but we can't predict the future. And I still think that even if this doesn't get it over the line or whatever you want to call it, in our lifetimes, at least for posterity, for the future, we document this stuff just as those that came before us documented what they found out. 

That's why I love looking back at the history, just seeing all the voices that were speaking out about this. And unfortunately, a lot of them were drowned out at the time by the special. You know, actually, my next article on Substac, I'm going through two different papers, one by Gordon T. Stewart, who I guess was part of the rethinking AiDs organization, but it was about the limitations of germ theory. 

And even though he was someone who believed in viruses and germ theory, you can see how he was starting to kind of pick apart a lot of the flaws in the actual theory, which I hate to call it a theory, I call it the germ hypothesis. I can't even say the word, but you know what I mean. But it's interesting to see voices even. What was the other guy? I think it was Renee Dubois or something. 

I can't even say the guy's name, but he had a paper called second thoughts on the germ theory disease. And again, it's another person who was very much firmly entrenched in the germ theory and virus narrative. But he was pointing out all the ways in which it's the terrain, it's the things that we're subjected to in our environment that is the cause of disease. I think, if I remember correctly, the word he used, they're necessary. 

But was it necessary? Prerequisite. But they're not the cause, the main cause, or something along those lines. But even from these voices that were in the germ theory virology camp, you can see that the truth was coming out. They're seeing the cracks in the theory. And I think we can teach people through those sources as well. So I'm excited to share that with people as well. Coming up. 

Yeah, it's so funny. It reminds me of when you were talking about the immune system before and how that was such a thing, because I remember Mark literally sat me down. He's like, I think you need to sit down and said, not sure that. Don't think I'm crazy, but I'm not sure that viruses exist. And my immediate reaction was, well, what about antibodies? How does this work and how does this work? And I'm just started, like ratling off those things and how actually your mind we were talking about this last night you have to be ready to hear this information. 

If you hear it too soon, it's not the right time, you're not ready to hear it, you just discount it. But when you get it at the right time, and then it's the next steps and the next step, and it keeps pushing you forward, and there's always something to learn, which I think is really exciting. It is really exciting. But that's exactly when you were just talking about that. 

That reminds me, just going back to that meme that I saw of the vaccines, like the ingredients, it was something that was interesting to me at the time, but I wasn't ready to really hear that. I wasn't really ready to investigate it, but it planted that seed in my mind. And then when I needed to know or I needed to recall that information when my son was injured, then that became just that boom, that aha moment. 

I was like, I need to look into this. I need to do some research. And then with my mother in law, when all that stuff happened, it was this drive in me that I needed to uncover. I needed to solve this mystery. Why was she going through this? What happened? How did these tests mix up the diagnosis? And it just compelled me to keep going forward. And it is. 

It's almost like Domino's. It just can be falling over, falling over, falling over. That's how I felt. It's just like the next thing. The next thing. I need to keep going and see where this leads me. And it's been an interesting ride, but I just love just going through the history of. It is so fascinating to me. And so that's kind of what I've been really focused on the last few months, is just going through the history of virology. 

And it's a fascinating, really fascinating to look at. But then it's just frustrating, too, because you can see so many people are out there calling out the fraud early on, but they just were drowned out their voices. One thing that I really like to do is to make sure that their voices are heard now. And I think you guys did that, too, when you published a book that was terrain therapy, which was based on a doctor who became a naturopath, Eric Williams, who was based in New Zealand. 

Yeah, definitely. I love giving people a chance to have their work and their words presented to a new audience that wasn't familiar with them at the time. And that was extra special Mike, because they tried to censor him back in the middle of the 19 hundreds. They didn't want him speaking at public events, and they tried to strike him off and all this kind of stuff. So we've got this kind of delight that they were trying to do that to him back then. 

And now, when all of his critics are long forgotten, nobody knows who they are or what they even said. They're finished. But now his work is being put forward again. And we've had people from all over the world, it's amazing where that book is turning up now. It's literally everywhere. And yeah, I think it is important to. We've found that too, with creating some things in digital format as well, so you can rapidly get it out, like taking old books. 

And we've downloaded articles and stuff, and some of them are painstakingly. If the OCR technology can't pick up the words, I've actually just rewritten the documents myself, which is quite painful if it's about 4000 words, but just doing it so everyone can get copies of this stuff. And we've posted downloads on the website and stuff. So we agree it's about bringing those voices which they tried to completely suppress, back to light. 

I reckon, Mike, that your mother in law must be smiling on you from in heaven. And I'm sure she's so proud of everything that you've done and how you've used what happened to her for the good. And I imagine I didn't know her, obviously, but I imagine that she would not want you to feel guilty or anything like that because you did the best. Yeah. She's celebrating what you're doing and wants you to use that energy to do even. 

Thank you. Now, Mike, I think everyone knows where to find you, but we should know, I think, for those that don't. I was just about to say, we'll let Mike say where to follow him and stuff. And you don't have to give out your home address like you did to the pizza man. Find my work@virology. com. B-I-R-O-L-I-E-G-Y. Or at the substack, which is mikestone substack. com. And I'm also on Facebook and Twitter if people want to. 

Or telegram. There's a virology telegram channel that people can go to as well. So that's how you can find me. Well, thank you so much for your time, Mike. It's been so lovely. The time has just gone really fast. I think people are going to be excited about hearing that you are writing a book and where to find you on. I always pronounce it wrong. Then I thought it was virology, but is it? I just say I can't even talk now, virology, but just phonetically. 

But viral works mean or whatever Tom Cowan spits out whenever he says it works as well. Whatever anyone wants to say, as long as they remember it's just viral lie g your way probably sounds better in. Yeah, yeah. I've always said viral lie g because. And the capitalize I love it. I love it in the tom, just a few times. Cool. Yeah. Thank you so much for your time, Mike, and it's been a real pleasure and we hope that you have a wonderful Christmas. 

Well, thank you, you guys as well. I really appreciate it. It's been a really, I really appreciate you guys taking the time to talk with me tonight. Thank you, Mike. It's been amazing. And I'll be talking to you soon. If you enjoyed this video, please visit support sam. com. .