Speaker 1: Well, joining us now our doctors Mark and Sam Bailey
Speaker 1: Sam short for Samantha, and you can find their website
Speaker 1: at doctor Sambailey dot com. They've put it in her
Speaker 1: name because although they're both doctors, she was on TV
Speaker 1: in New Zealand and so she started asking some uncomfortable
Speaker 1: questions of the establishment. And so I had them on
Speaker 1: about a year ago and we were talking about their
Speaker 1: book at the time, was The Final Pandemic, and they
Speaker 1: were pointing out they were questioning all of virology, which
Speaker 1: is what they've done that's got them in a lot
Speaker 1: of trouble in New Zealand. And so I want to
Speaker 1: get caught up as to what's happening in New Zealand,
Speaker 1: and I like to get their comments on what's happening
Speaker 1: in America as the pharmaceutical industry is getting pretty desperate
Speaker 1: to defend vaccines and so we're starting to get these
Speaker 1: narratives about measles epidemics and I know that they're skeptical
Speaker 1: of that as I am as well. So thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us, doctors Mark and Sam Bailey. Thank you,
Speaker 1: good to have you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, David, pleasure to be here. And yeah, I
Speaker 2: think you're quite right.
Speaker 3: Sam in particular has been in some more hot water
Speaker 3: here in New Zealand, and last year she unexpectedly had
Speaker 3: her bank accounts frozen. Really yes, and then we had
Speaker 3: the authorities trying to seize some of our family assets
Speaker 3: because apparently Samo's them money for COVID crimes. She's even
Speaker 3: been charged here in New Zealand with COVID nineteen. That's
Speaker 3: apparently that's a charge that they can bring against you.
Speaker 1: And anyway, well I used it like everybody now, so
Speaker 1: I guess I could use it to like you up.
Speaker 1: So they actually have a charge called COVID nineteen. What
Speaker 1: does that involved.
Speaker 4: It's for the in the medical world. That's when they
Speaker 4: had their fake kind of kangaroo court tribunal about me.
Speaker 4: That's what they charged me with was COVID nineteen. So yeah,
Speaker 4: but they said they are I owe a lot of
Speaker 4: money because of my thought crimes and yeah, and they
Speaker 4: de banked me and that took I had to go
Speaker 4: into court to fight it and that was quite full on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was just it was really disruptive for several months, David,
Speaker 3: but it was Sam had a good result. She took
Speaker 3: them into the High Court and it was ruled as unlawful.
Speaker 3: They're still going after these crazy COVID fines, but they've
Speaker 3: been told no, you're not allowed to do what they did,
Speaker 3: making this attempt to seize bank accounts, et cetera. So yeah,
Speaker 3: but it's just like you say, this is what happens
Speaker 3: when doctors like us who were once in the establishment.
Speaker 3: And Sam was a real golden girl, like you say,
Speaker 3: she was on network television and a real favorite, and
Speaker 3: then come early twenty twenty she questioned the COVID narrative
Speaker 3: and said, look, I don't think there's a pandemic at all,
Speaker 3: and that led to this. So yeah, and like you say,
Speaker 3: we put out the final pandemic that was actually now
Speaker 3: was that twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've put that out. Yeah, it's a couple of
Speaker 2: years since we put that out.
Speaker 1: And when you're going to realize you've got a new
Speaker 1: book that you just put out, tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about that.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess it's a new an older, new book.
Speaker 3: It's the book version of my essay A Farewell to Virology. Now,
Speaker 3: I wrote this in twenty twenty two because I felt
Speaker 3: there wasn't a standalone piece a treatise refuting the entire
Speaker 3: virus model all of virology.
Speaker 2: So I wrote this essay.
Speaker 3: It's about twenty nine thousand words and it's pretty dry.
Speaker 3: And Sam said, there's no way, there's no way I
Speaker 3: could ever make that into a video production, and she didn't,
Speaker 3: although filmmaker Steve Felkner did make it into a three
Speaker 3: part documentary eventually.
Speaker 2: But we had such positive feedback.
Speaker 3: And we'd reached a point where the PDF had been
Speaker 3: downloaded about quarter of a million times, and we were
Speaker 3: surprised because it's a very dry technical paper, you know,
Speaker 3: reputing the virus model. And we decided last year, why
Speaker 3: don't we put it out as a book, and I
Speaker 3: included a couple of bonus essays that I've written since
Speaker 3: that time, and that's sold really, really well. It's really thrilling, David,
Speaker 3: to see this that we think, you know, not so
Speaker 3: long ago, people you know, weren't questioning this stuff on
Speaker 3: a widespread scale. Nowadays, this is coming up all the time,
Speaker 3: and people are not only questioning vaccines and pandemics, but
Speaker 3: also the entire virus model. So it's been really positive
Speaker 3: for us to see that there's a big appetite out
Speaker 3: there for this work, and we're seeing people now in
Speaker 3: conversation say yeah, well I don't believe in vaccines, and
Speaker 3: then you'll hear someone say to them, well, I don't
Speaker 3: think that viruses a you know, there's sufficient evidence for
Speaker 3: them either. So yeah, when we see this is the
Speaker 3: whole thing. The silver lining with the COVID fraud, that's right,
Speaker 3: is that it has inadvertently woken people up and they've
Speaker 3: gone deeper and deeper into looking into these things.
Speaker 1: That's right. We talked about that last time, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of interesting. It's what we say about
Speaker 1: government all the time. You know, you may not be
Speaker 1: interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. And
Speaker 1: we could say the same thing about virology. Right, you say,
Speaker 1: this might be pretty dry reading, but after what happened
Speaker 1: five years ago, I think people need to say, you know,
Speaker 1: this is something I need to know about. I need
Speaker 1: to interest myself in this because this was used to
Speaker 1: lock down the world, and if it's going to be
Speaker 1: used to lockdown in the world, we need to know
Speaker 1: a little bit about it. You know, when you're talking
Speaker 1: about getting yes, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Oh sorry, now I was just going to say exactly
Speaker 5: just it's so.
Speaker 4: Important and I think when people when people, you can't
Speaker 4: we can't cold call people and say look into this.
Speaker 5: It has to come from the individual.
Speaker 4: But I think it's really added with this been a
Speaker 4: complete lack of trust in the medical system since after
Speaker 4: what's happened, people have now distrusting vaccines. And the next
Speaker 4: question that fools to people, will do these.
Speaker 5: Things even exist? What are they doing to us?
Speaker 4: And that in itself, that question, when you answer it
Speaker 4: is so empowering because it changes your entire way of
Speaker 4: seeing health and how to be well.
Speaker 5: And it's a really.
Speaker 4: Positive step and we see it. There's a great awakening
Speaker 4: going on.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, well you know that is. And I've said
Speaker 1: this for the longest time. You know, where we're talking
Speaker 1: about the Green New Deal or whatever. You know, it's like,
Speaker 1: show me your data. I was with a group that
Speaker 1: had to sue to try to get Michael Mann's data
Speaker 1: as part of the climate gate thing that happened with
Speaker 1: East Anglia, and he fought so hard to keep his
Speaker 1: data secret. Well, that's kind of suspicious. I don't think
Speaker 1: somebody would do that if it's all up and above board,
Speaker 1: And so that really kind of feeds your scale criticism,
Speaker 1: and you know, if it's true, you don't need to
Speaker 1: hide it. And so I think that's the key thing
Speaker 1: about a lot of this stuff. People saw this throughout
Speaker 1: the virus stuff, when we saw the heavy hand of
Speaker 1: censorship and as you're talking about before, de banking people
Speaker 1: and that type of thing. I got de banked in
Speaker 1: May of twenty twenty one, five months after we started
Speaker 1: the show, and at that point in time, PayPal was
Speaker 1: where I got. Pretty much all the contributions that we
Speaker 1: got was through PayPal, So that was a really big
Speaker 1: deal when we got cut off in the one place.
Speaker 1: And now we've made sure that we've got a lot
Speaker 1: of different places where people can support the show. But
Speaker 1: I just saw that they've admitted that most of these
Speaker 1: dbank orders are the D banking is being driven by government,
Speaker 1: not by the corporations, just like we saw with the censorship.
Speaker 1: For the longest time, we said, this censorship is coming
Speaker 1: from the government. We can tell because of the pattern
Speaker 1: in it, and then they admitted it. We got the
Speaker 1: documents and you could see that it was actually coming
Speaker 1: from the government. The same thing true of the D
Speaker 1: banking as well as we would all suspect. So yeah,
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit about measles. Though, because we've
Speaker 1: had here in the United States before we had going
Speaker 1: to war with the world and changing the subjects every
Speaker 1: other day, they were starting to push back against some
Speaker 1: of the minor changes that are being made at HHS
Speaker 1: by RFK Junior. I'm glad to see some of these changes.
Speaker 1: They've reduced the I don't know if you're familiar with
Speaker 1: what's going on in the US, but they've reduced the
Speaker 1: vaccine count that they recommend that they're really virtually mandating
Speaker 1: for children by the pressures that were put on to pediatricians.
Speaker 1: They would offer both carrots and sticks to make sure
Speaker 1: that they would get the kids vaccinated, and so there
Speaker 1: were penalties associated with the reimbursements they would get from
Speaker 1: the insurance companies and things like that. So they have
Speaker 1: pulled back some of these and we go back and
Speaker 1: look at the vaccine schedule. I was really surprised to
Speaker 1: see how many times they would repeat these vaccines. Some
Speaker 1: of them were given four and five times during childhood.
Speaker 1: And so they've pulled back the frequency and the number
Speaker 1: of vaccines that are recommended, and they've also pulled it
Speaker 1: back to say there's not going to be any penalty
Speaker 1: if you don't follow the recommendations. So that's positive stuff,
Speaker 1: but that's really got the vaccine industry fired up. So
Speaker 1: they were coming back with measles, and so I went
Speaker 1: to the CDC, and I thought it was kind of
Speaker 1: interesting to see how many cases they had and how
Speaker 1: many so called outbreaks that they'd had, because they put
Speaker 1: a lot on this South Carolina and there was another
Speaker 1: one in Georgia, but South Carolina they were really focused
Speaker 1: on just a couple of months ago. And they were
Speaker 1: giving us narratives saying that you had a hundred kids
Speaker 1: or whatever, and I said, yeah, but you notice that
Speaker 1: they're not saying anybody is hospitalized, and no Mondey has died,
Speaker 1: even though we had in Texas, I think it was
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four, they had two cases that they
Speaker 1: claimed had been had been fatal. When Children's Self Defense
Speaker 1: went and investigation, they found that that was not the
Speaker 1: cause of death of these So that's men disputed, and
Speaker 1: I think very effectively disputed. But they never even claimed
Speaker 1: that anybody died or was hospitalized out of these cases
Speaker 1: in South Carolina and Georgia. And I thought it was
Speaker 1: kind of interesting Mark and Sam that when they define
Speaker 1: an outbreak, that is more than three cases that are connected.
Speaker 1: And so they said that sixty nine percent of the
Speaker 1: cases in twenty twenty four were outbreaks, but then that
Speaker 1: meant that thirty one percent of the cases were not.
Speaker 1: And so it's like, that's kind of strange. If they're
Speaker 1: telling us that this is the most contagious virus out there,
Speaker 1: how is it that you're getting all these situations where
Speaker 1: we have one person or two people that have it
Speaker 1: and nobody else has it. And so that raises a question,
Speaker 1: I think in my mind, at least, what would you
Speaker 1: tell the audience. I know we talked about this last
Speaker 1: time you were on, we talked about measles, but kind
Speaker 1: of give us a refresher course about your position about
Speaker 1: measles and what you think is going on here, because
Speaker 1: a lot of people have had an experience with it
Speaker 1: where most of us in the US had measles at
Speaker 1: my age, and so the question is, you know, why
Speaker 1: did a lot of us have measles back then, Why
Speaker 1: is it so many fewer right now? And why did
Speaker 1: it appear like it was something that was being passed
Speaker 1: on to people you want to speak to.
Speaker 3: That, yeah, sure, And David, this comes down to the
Speaker 3: narrative that the media present. And it's a complicated thing because,
Speaker 3: like you say, people will contact us and say, hey,
Speaker 3: there's an outbreak in the city and the United States,
Speaker 3: and they're all unvaccinated kids and some of them are
Speaker 3: really sick, and you have to really peeck things back
Speaker 3: to the whole historical aspects of measles and the basic science.
Speaker 3: So like you, we would say, first of all, investigate
Speaker 3: what do they mean by an outbreak, and we find
Speaker 3: that these days there might be two cases and splashing
Speaker 3: that in the heaadlines saying outbreak. Now, this is something
Speaker 3: historically that would have never made national news, let alone
Speaker 3: of course, to murmur in the local community. Nobody calls
Speaker 3: that an outbreak. But they've changed the language, they've changed
Speaker 3: the definitions. Then we have the issue with what is
Speaker 3: a case.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: Historically they didn't have any tests, any laboratory tests, so
Speaker 3: it was all done clinically, you know, So a kid
Speaker 3: would present with a rash and a fever and it
Speaker 3: was up to.
Speaker 2: The doctor to decide what that was.
Speaker 3: Now, Sam and I used to be in the system
Speaker 3: and we were trained up in that system, and they'll
Speaker 3: tell you all of these things like adoptor knows measles
Speaker 3: because there's complex spot, the complex spots in the mouth,
Speaker 3: a special sign that you'll see, all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: And then you look into the research and you find
Speaker 3: out that these case definitions are so wooly. You know,
Speaker 3: most of them don't have these special features. The rashes
Speaker 3: all look very similar. How do you distinguish between handfoot
Speaker 3: in mouth, you know, measles, chicken pox, monkey pocks, small pox.
Speaker 3: They're all just degrees. They're all just similar presentations, coughs, fevers,
Speaker 3: runny noses, and rashes. A lot of it comes down
Speaker 3: to what the doctor decides. Then we have this problem
Speaker 3: of whether the child has been vaccinated or not. So
Speaker 3: a lot of the time the child's been vaccinated, you're
Speaker 3: not allowed to make the diagnosis. You know, you have
Speaker 3: to look at something else because that doesn't look good.
Speaker 3: And at other times there's a special message that goes
Speaker 3: out to the medical community and there may be incentives
Speaker 3: to report the cases. You know, you need to suddenly
Speaker 3: start reporting.
Speaker 2: So we have to think that.
Speaker 3: These are often artificial situations that we're seeing. Nothing is
Speaker 3: actually changing in the community. But it's the way it's
Speaker 3: being presented, the way it's being tested, the way things
Speaker 3: are being looked for.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we know.
Speaker 3: Historically, like you say that many of us last century
Speaker 3: were given the diagnosis of measles. By definition, it was
Speaker 3: a very mild condition and a lot of kids used
Speaker 3: to celebrate getting it because it meant that they got
Speaker 3: the week of school because of this crazy notion that
Speaker 3: people thought it was a contagious entity. So for a child,
Speaker 3: it was a pretty exciting time you got the measles.
Speaker 3: It was a guaranteed week or two of school while
Speaker 3: you hit the rash, etc. But these days, as you know,
Speaker 3: we're being presented with the story that the measles is deadly.
Speaker 3: It's so oh my goodness, imagine if your child got that.
Speaker 3: And we're not actually seeing cases or claimed cases where
Speaker 3: children are dying. Outside of these very small number of
Speaker 3: events and incidents. We're on deeper inspection on actual looking
Speaker 3: at the medical records, we find out that these kids
Speaker 3: were sick for other reasons and someone happened to label
Speaker 3: them or said that they had a co infection in
Speaker 3: quotes with measles at the time, and then the media
Speaker 3: pick up on it and say, you know, child with
Speaker 3: measles dives, But you know, it's clear to us when
Speaker 3: you look at the medical records that the child was
Speaker 3: sick for other reasons.
Speaker 1: And that's what happened in Texas with doctor Brian Hooker.
Speaker 1: Another Jeff, I agree, yeah, and so there is that
Speaker 1: you point out. Sometimes there's an incentive to not report
Speaker 1: it as measles. Sometimes there's an incentive to report it
Speaker 1: as measles. And it's very similar to what we saw
Speaker 1: with COVID. The government, the federal government was giving a
Speaker 1: bonus to doctors if they would do a clinical diagnosis.
Speaker 1: Point at somebody say he's got COVID, and I see
Speaker 1: get a. I think it was thirteen thousand dollars if
Speaker 1: I remember correctly. And then towards August of twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: you had the American Hospital Association say, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: you're telling us now that you need some kind of
Speaker 1: a PCR diagnosis. That's here. You told us at the
Speaker 1: beginning those didn't work and you didn't have enough of them,
Speaker 1: and he told us just to do diagnosis, and now
Speaker 1: you're not paying up. So that kind of blew the
Speaker 1: cover because there's no honor among thieves, I guess, And
Speaker 1: so people would start to see things like that happening.
Speaker 1: And we realize now that that's not just limited to COVID.
Speaker 1: This is the type of thing they've been running for
Speaker 1: quite some time, isn't it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 4: And I think what is also interesting is, you know
Speaker 4: what Mark was saying with the classification a serious pathogen,
Speaker 4: you only need one case for it to be defined
Speaker 4: as an outbreak. So that's what happened we saw in
Speaker 4: COVID in New Zealand where there was one case and
Speaker 4: the whole nation went into lockdown.
Speaker 3: Just to be clear, when Sam say's pathogen, that's yeah.
Speaker 2: We don't want people to think they're on their tombs.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: We pathogenic is a word, you know, Men's disease causing pathogen.
Speaker 3: They took this term last century and made it up
Speaker 3: and said, oh, that's microbes, you know, bacteria and invisible
Speaker 3: or imaginary viruses. But as Sam says, in their system,
Speaker 3: they will say that you can have one case and
Speaker 3: if it's a serious one, they say that's an outbreak.
Speaker 2: We now have an outbreak.
Speaker 3: Folks in countries like New Zealand, they'll shut down the
Speaker 3: entire country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Oh, it's crazy. And I think that's one
Speaker 1: of the key things that many of us don't realize
Speaker 1: is they haven't really done real science. I'm sure you
Speaker 1: address that and your farewell to virology. They didn't do
Speaker 1: real science to isolate a particular thing like a virus
Speaker 1: or something and then correlate that to the illness, to say, well,
Speaker 1: we got this thing that we find in the people
Speaker 1: who are sick, and we don't find it and the
Speaker 1: people were well, and if we take that and transfer
Speaker 1: it to the people who are well, they get sick.
Speaker 1: That's what everybody thinks is happening. But that's not what's happening.
Speaker 2: Right, David.
Speaker 3: There is a hidden history behind measles. And when Sam
Speaker 3: and I had trained as doctors, they didn't tell us
Speaker 3: about this, and they presented very selective information and they
Speaker 3: said that there was some monkey experiments that were done
Speaker 3: early last century that proved that measles was highly contagious. Now,
Speaker 3: that was very disingenuous because when we actually dug into
Speaker 3: the history and I've got a note here, researchers like
Speaker 3: Daniel Reuter's, our Australian colleague, have done magnificent work digging
Speaker 3: up all of these old studies.
Speaker 2: There were a whole lot of studies.
Speaker 3: In the eighteen hundreds, and people would be shocked if
Speaker 3: they knew what they actually did, because you'd never get
Speaker 3: this stuff approved these days past the ethics committees. So
Speaker 3: they were taking children and even young ones like babies,
Speaker 3: and trying to give them measles. They were doing everything
Speaker 3: they could, so a doctor would researcher would locate a
Speaker 3: case of a kid that was unwell with what was
Speaker 3: said to be measles, that quickly takes snot and tears
Speaker 3: and even blood from these kids, and then they'd go
Speaker 3: and try and infect other kids. Now often that'd just
Speaker 3: squirt it straight up their nose or expose their eyes,
Speaker 3: or just put it.
Speaker 2: On their skin.
Speaker 3: Sometimes they would actually make wounds to their bodies and
Speaker 3: introduce this material, this disease material. They would also inject
Speaker 3: it straight into other children. So they'd take blood from
Speaker 3: one child said to have measles, inject it into another.
Speaker 3: All failures didn't work. All they could induce were these
Speaker 3: local kind of reactions. And they said because they were
Speaker 3: so obsessed of showing that there was some sort of
Speaker 3: contagious element. They said, oh, maybe techniques are insufficient. There
Speaker 3: were even techniques where they then they brought monkeys in
Speaker 3: and they exposed them to sack humans, and the monkeys
Speaker 3: didn't get sacked. So eventually they resorted to taking blood
Speaker 3: from people said to have measles and injected it into
Speaker 3: these monkeys, these reciss monkeys and other small monkeys.
Speaker 2: Some not all.
Speaker 3: Some of the monkeys developed a little bit of a
Speaker 3: rash around the injection site and a fever, and then
Speaker 3: they said, well, that proves it.
Speaker 2: There was a.
Speaker 3: Study nineteen eleven Anderson and Goldberger, and this is the
Speaker 3: one they'll cite of saying, well, that's when they showed
Speaker 3: it was contagious. Now the rest of us looking at
Speaker 3: this to say this is outrageous because the WHO and
Speaker 3: the CDC they say that measles is an airborne disease,
Speaker 3: it's transmitted via aerosol, and that just being in the
Speaker 3: same room with someone is enough to cause you to
Speaker 3: come down with the case of the measles. Clearly, the
Speaker 3: research never showed that they had to do these preposterous
Speaker 3: experiments where they injected animals with human blood. And we know,
Speaker 3: David that that will cause a reaction because and even
Speaker 3: the human experiments they did sometimes you'll get a reaction
Speaker 3: because the blood is not cross matched appropriately. So you
Speaker 3: don't need a virus to cause these increases in temperature.
Speaker 3: And none of them recreated the same illness, the classic illness,
Speaker 3: so completely this is all hidden.
Speaker 1: Well, they did the same type of thing. I learned
Speaker 1: this from you. They did the same type of thing
Speaker 1: like from nineteen forty something in nineteen eighty something in
Speaker 1: the UK Cold House where they were doing everything they
Speaker 1: could to transmit colds to people and failed in the
Speaker 1: same way that you're talking about what they did in
Speaker 1: the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: Sam has a great video on the Common Cold Unit
Speaker 3: that people can watch and really amazing. Yeah, this is
Speaker 3: where they invented coronavirus, David. This is where it comes from,
Speaker 3: is that you know in humans because they said, yeah,
Speaker 3: we don't really know what's going on here, but we
Speaker 3: think it must be viruses. Forty years they operate this
Speaker 3: facility in England and out of it comes nothing but
Speaker 3: virology mythology, where they said that they found about a
Speaker 3: couple of hundred viruses that seem to cause common colds.
Speaker 3: And again we looked at those experiments and we were
Speaker 3: shocked because the vast majority of them completely failed. And importantly,
Speaker 3: Daniel Reuters has gone further with his book Can You
Speaker 3: Catch a Cold, where he documents hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 3: these human transmission attempts with flues colds and they fail.
Speaker 3: You know, the mode is is that most of the
Speaker 3: experiments completely fail.
Speaker 2: And this is like extreme.
Speaker 3: This is people coughing in other people's faces, living in
Speaker 3: the same room for several days and a time, and
Speaker 3: just this complete inability to make the other person sick.
Speaker 1: And transference of body fluids like you know, mucus and
Speaker 1: things like that as well. Right, but it seems like,
Speaker 1: you know, they come up with the name coronavirus. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was based on circular logic virology. Maybe that was it.
Speaker 3: Uh, I don't know, but yeah, well there's the story
Speaker 3: there is. Yeah, it's just incredible because, yeah, the coronavirus
Speaker 3: stuff just pops up all the time.
Speaker 2: But essentially, it was.
Speaker 3: A exercise where a virologist gave a tissue sample to
Speaker 3: an electron microscopist Junew Mada in the nineteen sixties and said,
Speaker 3: basically said to her, there's a virus in there? Can
Speaker 3: you find it? And she just pointed to something and said,
Speaker 3: I think that's it. And then for evermore if people
Speaker 3: see this, they say that's the coronavirus or a coronavirus, yeah,
Speaker 3: pointed to clear we call it.
Speaker 1: It kind of reminds me of the etymology of the
Speaker 1: term computer bi You know, they had a woman who
Speaker 1: had a malfunctioning machine. They opened it up, there was
Speaker 1: a bug in those Yeah, that was that. It was
Speaker 1: a bug in After that, we all talk about having
Speaker 1: bugs inside the software. But it's kind of that name
Speaker 1: sort of thing.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: We got an inkling of this as everybody was talking
Speaker 1: about rushing this vaccine into deployment, and I guess that's
Speaker 1: a good word since it was kind of a military
Speaker 1: operation and so they were talking about we got to
Speaker 1: speed this up. He had a lot of true believers
Speaker 1: out there and said, I'll volunteer, you know, let me
Speaker 1: have this vaccine and then you can expose me to
Speaker 1: We can short circuit this because the way they would
Speaker 1: do the testing that was kind of a harbinger of
Speaker 1: all this stuff. The fact is that they don't expose
Speaker 1: people to the disease that you're supposed to that this
Speaker 1: is supposed to prevent, right, So when somebody is getting
Speaker 1: a therapeutic, they take somebody who's already sick with the
Speaker 1: condition and they give them this therapeutic, and they have
Speaker 1: a control so they have people who get a placebo,
Speaker 1: people get a new treatment, and they look to see,
Speaker 1: first of all, the first phase is does it kill people,
Speaker 1: So they have just a very small group of people,
Speaker 1: and to check to see if there's really obvious immediate
Speaker 1: damage that's done. And then if it clears that hurdle,
Speaker 1: then they start with the phase two and phase three
Speaker 1: tests where they start to give people that already have
Speaker 1: this condition to see if it makes a little bit
Speaker 1: of a change with them, and they look at the
Speaker 1: efficacy of it based on the difference between the control
Speaker 1: group and the people who got the drug. But they say,
Speaker 1: with a vaccine, we can't do that. It be unethical
Speaker 1: to if this stuff doesn't work, it be unethical to
Speaker 1: give this disease to somebody. Except that's what they were
Speaker 1: doing in the cold house, that's what they were doing
Speaker 1: in these other virology experiments you're talking about in the
Speaker 1: eighteen hundreds, and so in a sense, if they were
Speaker 1: to do that. They call that a challenge test. If
Speaker 1: they were to do that, it would put it would
Speaker 1: show people that there was nothing there in the first place.
Speaker 1: I think that maybe another reason they don't do that
Speaker 1: because it doesn't seem to be a whole lot of
Speaker 1: ethics in terms are preventing them from doing a lot
Speaker 1: of other things. So it may be that they're just
Speaker 1: trying to hide cover for rology.
Speaker 5: I don't know, you yeah, definitely, Yeah, yeah, David.
Speaker 3: It's really interesting you mentioned that because Sam and I
Speaker 3: both used to work in clinical trials and these were
Speaker 3: in big fun, big farmer sponsored human trials.
Speaker 5: We were in the dark side, David, we.
Speaker 2: Were trained up in their craft. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Now, one thing that really struck us when we were
Speaker 3: involved in that work, and you'll see that in some
Speaker 3: of our presentations, like recently Sam did one on vitamin
Speaker 3: K injections in the newborn, and that is this numbers
Speaker 3: needed to treat them, where they're saying, oh, we can't
Speaker 3: do the trial because the numbers needed, Well, they don't
Speaker 3: say that, They'll say because the size of the trial would.
Speaker 2: Need to be so big.
Speaker 3: And you're like thinking to yourself, why would you need
Speaker 3: a trial that size for something that's supposedly really effective,
Speaker 3: you know, because they're saying, we need like two hundred
Speaker 3: thousand people in the trial to show that it's effective.
Speaker 2: You know that at that point it's.
Speaker 3: Absolute ridiculousness because the numbers needed to treat, even on.
Speaker 5: Their own terms, maybe explain what that means.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's the numbers you would need to give
Speaker 3: a therapy too to prevent one event, not to save
Speaker 3: a life, and it's whichever event you choose. So the
Speaker 3: event might be sneezing. So you might say, well, we've
Speaker 3: got this new therapeutic and the numbers needed to treat
Speaker 3: nine hundred, and it will prevent one sneeze. So clearly,
Speaker 3: telling a person, hey, I've got this treatment that prevents sneezing,
Speaker 3: a person might say, oh, great, I'll take that treatment.
Speaker 2: If you told them nine.
Speaker 3: Hundred people need to take this medication and one will
Speaker 3: get the benefit, which is not sneezing, eight hundred and
Speaker 3: ninety nine will not get the benefit, and they'll be
Speaker 3: exposed to all the potential adverse effects of that medication,
Speaker 3: and they won't tell you those because they might not
Speaker 3: have looked at them all. So this is the preposterousness,
Speaker 3: and like you say, they'll just say, oh, we can't
Speaker 3: do the trials because of this reason and that reason,
Speaker 3: And that should be a red flag to people right
Speaker 3: away as to the fact that this is not an
Speaker 3: effective treatment and all. The only way it can work
Speaker 3: is through manipulation of the narrative. And it's a big thing,
Speaker 3: and it's what pharmaceutical companies really rely on these days.
Speaker 3: And with vaccines, you know, which we're talking about here,
Speaker 3: a lot the narrative is completely fraudulent, where they're mixing
Speaker 3: all sorts of things of mortality rates and incidents and
Speaker 3: who's vaccinated and who's not, all of these things. They
Speaker 3: manipulate the statistics. It's outright for aud I mean, Sam
Speaker 3: and I have exposed this stuff in some of our
Speaker 3: presentations looking at the CDC's own data and what they
Speaker 3: classify as vaccinated versus unvaccinated, and they will do things
Speaker 3: like they'll classify someone as unvaccinated if the person knows
Speaker 3: that they've been vaccinated but couldn't remember the date of
Speaker 3: the vaccination. In the CDC's world, that goes into the
Speaker 3: unvaccinated category. Now that's preposterous. The person clearly has been vaccinated,
Speaker 3: and it's just manipulating the statistics who produce a certain narrative.
Speaker 4: In the case of measles too, when I remember back,
Speaker 4: I used to work as a GP for a while,
Speaker 4: general practitioner. I remember seeing the only patients I ever
Speaker 4: saw with the true measles type rash, you know, the
Speaker 4: really classic looking one. They were all drug reactions. There
Speaker 4: were people that had had antibiotics and then a week
Speaker 4: later they developed this classic measles rash, you know, And
Speaker 4: that was the only ones I ever saw. And I
Speaker 4: just and it's funny, how again, this is all crafted.
Speaker 4: If if I'd say that there wasn't I hadn't asked
Speaker 4: about the drug history, I would have called it measles
Speaker 4: and classified it as And you know, you realize how
Speaker 4: much this problem keeps popping up, doesn't it?
Speaker 3: With the absolutely and some of them are vaccine reactions
Speaker 3: as well. But of course, if you've had the vaccine,
Speaker 3: you're not supposed to have the disease.
Speaker 2: And I know that critics.
Speaker 3: Will say yes, but they have tests to differentiate that stuff,
Speaker 3: you know, antibody assays and stuff. But we've locked into
Speaker 3: all of these essays. They're dubious in themselves on their
Speaker 3: own terms. So all of it is, yeah, to protect
Speaker 3: this narrative, But what I think is really positive, David,
Speaker 3: is that clearly people you know, got wised up to
Speaker 3: the COVID nineteen narrative and went off that one. So
Speaker 3: now we see them relaunching other narratives because measles is.
Speaker 2: Not even familiar to people anymore.
Speaker 3: Because one thing Sam and I point out is that
Speaker 3: by the nineteen eighties when we were kids, most people
Speaker 3: infectious diseases and quotes weren't even a thing, and so
Speaker 3: many people were turning away from vaccines and could not
Speaker 3: see the need for them. Kids had generally got really,
Speaker 3: really healthy, childhood mortality had fallen away to almost nothing,
Speaker 3: and then of course they had to relaunch things in
Speaker 3: the nineteen nineties with these fear campaigns that suddenly these
Speaker 3: diseases like chicken pox and measles, which were joke illnesses
Speaker 3: to the physicians of old, who were often dealing with
Speaker 3: much more serious problems, suddenly the narrative changed and we
Speaker 3: were told that these are incredibly serious diseases and all
Speaker 3: children need to be vaccinated. And that's why we saw
Speaker 3: the massive increase in the childhood vaccination schedule from the
Speaker 3: nineteen nineties through to the present days.
Speaker 2: As you've noted that, it's.
Speaker 1: One of the numbers of vaccines that they've set up
Speaker 1: in New Zealand for so you know, from like birth
Speaker 1: to let's say, I guess it's was sixteen or something
Speaker 1: like that, they've got like seventy two here was what
Speaker 1: it was just recent until just recently. What do you
Speaker 1: have in New Zealand.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a really good question. I'm not actually sure
Speaker 5: of the one hundred.
Speaker 2: Yeah, ours is not far off.
Speaker 3: We don't have quite the same number, but it's up there,
Speaker 3: and it's the big change has been, as I say,
Speaker 3: the increase since the nineteen nineties. You know, back then
Speaker 3: in the eighties and seventies and eighties, there are only
Speaker 3: a handful that kids would be given and not many shots.
Speaker 3: But like the United States, the number of shots went
Speaker 3: up and up and up, and then it started including
Speaker 3: things like hippatitis, you know, which even on their own terms,
Speaker 3: kids are not supposed to get. And you know, up
Speaker 3: to this point today where like you say, a child
Speaker 3: might get almost eighty shots by the time they're a teenager.
Speaker 3: In a country like the United States, now. I think
Speaker 3: there have been some positive moves to try and reduce
Speaker 3: the number of recommended vaccines on the schedule, but we
Speaker 3: have to keep in mind they're all fraudulent, none of
Speaker 3: them are required, so we need more. And some people
Speaker 3: are saying, well, you know, RFK Jr. Is doing his work,
Speaker 3: he's in there. Hard for us to know how that's
Speaker 3: going to pan out, because obviously people can still get
Speaker 3: all of these vaccines and when they take their children
Speaker 3: to the doctor, most doctors are still in that mode
Speaker 3: of thinking where they think all vaccines are required and
Speaker 3: that you give as many as you can, etc. So
Speaker 3: whether that pans out with any positive influence, I'm not
Speaker 3: sure we can see on the ground. What is positive
Speaker 3: is that more people are turning away from vaccines at
Speaker 3: the moment than going in the other direction. So countries
Speaker 3: like New Zealand, it's definitely dropped off and a lot
Speaker 3: of parents now saying no to the vaccination schedule.
Speaker 1: God good. Is there a lot of pressure on parents?
Speaker 1: What is the situation with parental concern there in New.
Speaker 4: Zealand it's not so we don't have the same situation
Speaker 4: like California has where children are required to have all
Speaker 4: the childhood vaccinations in order to go to school and
Speaker 4: things that there wasn't sort of mandatory things like that
Speaker 4: in place, but in saying that, if you go to
Speaker 4: a university like a college, and you go into particularly
Speaker 4: a health related career, you're expected to have all of
Speaker 4: the vaccines plus you know, so Mark has a funny
Speaker 4: story where.
Speaker 5: They didn't become a doctor because he was very on
Speaker 5: the cusp of not.
Speaker 3: Taking Yeah, I got identified as a medical students read flagged. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I hadn't had all the jabs, and I was so
Speaker 3: close not to having them, and unfortunately I was gas
Speaker 3: lit by some of the physicians in the hospital where
Speaker 3: I was working. And when I raised a few concerns,
Speaker 3: they said, oh, no, this is it's all just credited
Speaker 3: anti vaxer stuff, and they said, don't even bother looking
Speaker 3: at that stuff, because yeah, there's been a lot of analysis,
Speaker 3: et cetera. And yeah, so I came close to not
Speaker 3: having many of the vaccines when I was as a
Speaker 3: medical student. But unfortunately, yeah, that pressure of they said
Speaker 3: I couldn't progress basically into clinical medicine. And unfortunately I
Speaker 3: had a few of the vaccines back then, but luckily
Speaker 3: no adverse events.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a loyalty test, isn't it. You know,
Speaker 1: you loyal to farmer. If not, we can't put you
Speaker 1: in the medical field. If you're going to question what
Speaker 1: farmer's do we's It's kind of interesting how they focus
Speaker 1: on medical students like that and doctor, Yeah.
Speaker 4: Exactly, it's it's opticians, it's every physios across the broad
Speaker 4: you know, and you're.
Speaker 5: Right, it totally is.
Speaker 4: It's this test, and you realize I didn't kind of
Speaker 4: appreciate it until what happened in after twenty twenty when
Speaker 4: when you start questioning gym, questioning vaccines standing on a
Speaker 4: lot landmine, but questioning germ.
Speaker 5: Theory is like you cannot be in the club if
Speaker 5: you think it's real. You'll be ostracized.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they don't want any discussion about it. That's
Speaker 3: that was what was terrible was our training in the
Speaker 3: medical system about vaccines was essentially based around how many
Speaker 3: vaccines kids should have, like you know, memorizing the schedule,
Speaker 3: and how to deal with so called anti vaxxeres. And
Speaker 3: they were presented as you know, these deluded people who
Speaker 3: had who were making money out of I don't know
Speaker 3: how you make money being an anti vaxer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know how you make money soon vaccines, but
Speaker 1: the top people might to buy it. There's no money
Speaker 1: of that really.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, while Sam's bank accounts were being frozen, we
Speaker 3: were looking up fires. They're going, my goodness, they made
Speaker 3: a hundred billions out of that one, and we couldn't
Speaker 3: work out how the money is in being against the vaccines.
Speaker 2: But we were told that it was what we were told, David.
Speaker 3: We were told that these anti vaccine people, sophisticated operators
Speaker 3: who you know, make a lot of money, and it
Speaker 3: was we didn't even look back then at the science.
Speaker 3: They didn't say to us, well, here's the figures or
Speaker 3: here's the original papers. They didn't want you looking at that.
Speaker 3: So essentially, and we found out since then that the
Speaker 3: medical schools, the academia, the scientific journals are largely controlled
Speaker 3: by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment.
Speaker 2: It's in their entriest to train the doctors up.
Speaker 3: And Peter Gootche has his book Deadly Medicines and Organized
Speaker 3: Crime really exposes this. Yeah, the narratives, the narratives are
Speaker 3: set by the industry, so there'll be these catch phrases
Speaker 3: safe and effective as one that came out of the
Speaker 3: lid of mind era, and they'll have all of these
Speaker 3: things that doctors go around saying, and the doctors think
Speaker 3: that this comes from honest, hard working doctors, and the
Speaker 3: origins of these catchphrases go back to the pharmaceutical industry
Speaker 3: and their market at Gurus, and unfortunately it permeates the
Speaker 3: whole medical world to the point where it's just taken
Speaker 3: for granted.
Speaker 4: And believe, do you know really quickly, I can't remember
Speaker 4: I told you this last time, David, but I remember
Speaker 4: so vividly. I graduated in two thousand and five from
Speaker 4: medical school, and so around two thousand and three, I
Speaker 4: think it was, we had our pediatric rotation and they
Speaker 4: spent a morning with us teaching us how to deal
Speaker 4: with anti vaxes.
Speaker 5: That was the whole thing, and they I.
Speaker 4: Remember it because I was, I mean, I was staunchly
Speaker 4: pro vaccine at this point, and that they would say,
Speaker 4: they'll come at you and they'll have lots of paperwork.
Speaker 5: And don't worry about looking at any of it.
Speaker 4: What you need to focus on is that they've refuted
Speaker 4: all this, that this has all been it's nonsense. What
Speaker 4: they're telling you they're in a cult and this is
Speaker 4: what they believe, and you have to kind of talk them.
Speaker 5: Out of it.
Speaker 4: And it was this really patronizing kind of talk down.
Speaker 4: I'm like, oh, yes, doctors, we know best.
Speaker 5: And now I think, oh my gosh, they're just training
Speaker 5: you up.
Speaker 4: This is a really evil kind of I don't know
Speaker 4: if that's still going, but that's definitely what I had.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I remember I remember in the summer of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty when they were talking about rolling up in
Speaker 1: this vaccine and they had already wargamed how they were
Speaker 1: going to psychologically manipulate people. Yale had done a study
Speaker 1: and they had about a dozen different categories of things
Speaker 1: that they could use, and they'd actually done double blind
Speaker 1: testing unlike the vaccines, so they actually tested the psychological
Speaker 1: stuff and the way that you would think that they
Speaker 1: would test a drug or something, but they had a
Speaker 1: control group that didn't get the narrative, and then somebody
Speaker 1: else that they would use that argument on to see
Speaker 1: if it was effective. And it was all the kind
Speaker 1: of stuff like, you know, you need to do this
Speaker 1: for your neighbor. This is like the moonshot. You need
Speaker 1: to trust science and all the narratives that we were sold,
Speaker 1: those were all tested with the focus groups and with
Speaker 1: control groups, and that part of it was very scientific.
Speaker 1: That was the only part that really had in science
Speaker 1: with it, was the behavioral science. And it's kind of
Speaker 1: interesting because they create this kind of this science fiction
Speaker 1: world with viruses and all the rest of the stuff,
Speaker 1: and it is an interesting and very complete universe, you know.
Speaker 1: But of course J. R. R. Tolkien did that with Lord
Speaker 1: of the Rings. He had a very intricate universe that
Speaker 1: he'd created, but it was all fake. So just because
Speaker 1: it's intricate doesn't mean that it's true. And the good
Speaker 1: science fiction is when you don't have logical gaps in
Speaker 1: the universe that you've created, right, And that was what
Speaker 1: I was seeing in twenty twenty. When I'm watching this closely,
Speaker 1: it's like, wait a minute, you know, what they're telling
Speaker 1: you doesn't make any any sense at all. For example,
Speaker 1: all the sudden, your mass doesn't protect you, other people's
Speaker 1: mass protects you. All that kind oft which has been
Speaker 1: the long term narrative for the vaccine. That was a
Speaker 1: tip as to where they were going with the vaccine.
Speaker 1: But you know, that type of stuff they had all
Speaker 1: these different things were just illogical that they were telling
Speaker 1: people that made absolutely no sense. Even if you believed
Speaker 1: the virology. What they were telling people didn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: They didn't hang.
Speaker 3: Together, no, and that astounded us to David in New Zealand,
Speaker 3: we had these really peculiar things like the government introduced
Speaker 3: this level system and this traffic light system, and they said, hey,
Speaker 3: look when there's heaps of cases out there, we're going
Speaker 3: to shut down the whole country. It goes into red
Speaker 3: light etc. And then when there are not many cases,
Speaker 3: we can open things up again. You know, this is
Speaker 3: during the COVID era. And then they just did the
Speaker 3: complete opposite in front of everyone, so we have no cases.
Speaker 3: We literally had no cases, even on their terms, and
Speaker 3: they shut New Zealand down and said you can't leave
Speaker 3: your house. And then later on in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: when they allowed the rat test the rapid antigen tests
Speaker 3: to flood out there, of course people just started testing
Speaker 3: at home and the number of cases went through the roof,
Speaker 3: and then they just said, oh it's time, it's time
Speaker 3: to open up. You know, it was completely illogical. It
Speaker 3: made no sense on their own traffic light level system,
Speaker 3: and Sam and I of course had refuted the entire
Speaker 3: notion that there was a sas Kobdo virus or that
Speaker 3: COVID nineteen represented some sort of new illness. It was
Speaker 3: all circular reasoning. But aside from that, we thought the
Speaker 3: people who bought into the narrative, surely at this point
Speaker 3: they're going, this makes no sense.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: And but for the people who really buy into the narrative,
Speaker 3: I think they just take the bits that suit them
Speaker 3: and discard the bits that don't suit them.
Speaker 2: And I mean it's a wider problem.
Speaker 1: I don't know how it was a New Zealand, but here,
Speaker 1: you know, if you went to a restaurant, for example,
Speaker 1: you had to wear a mask in order to be
Speaker 1: seated at a table, But once you got seated at
Speaker 1: the table, you could take the mask off, and then
Speaker 1: if you need to get up to go to the bathroom,
Speaker 1: you could walk through the restaurant without a mask on.
Speaker 1: It was all okay. And it's like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this doesn't make any sense. And I had a couple
Speaker 1: of I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere if
Speaker 1: it was a chain, but I went to places that
Speaker 1: were locally owned, and I said, don't want to speak
Speaker 1: to the owner. And I talked to him and they said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we know it doesn't make any sense, but you got
Speaker 1: to do it. And it's like you're still on the
Speaker 1: rope that's going to hang here. This is crazy and
Speaker 1: it was that kind of crazy stuff, and yet the
Speaker 1: reality is that people were going along with it, whether
Speaker 1: they believed it or not. I don't know if other
Speaker 1: people believed it or if they disbelieved it, but I
Speaker 1: know they complied with it, and you know, it's just
Speaker 1: to me, that was the worst kind of insanity. Now,
Speaker 1: we haven't had any kind of review or anything. They
Speaker 1: didn't even pretend to have review here in the United States.
Speaker 1: So there has been a pretend review, a pretend inquiry
Speaker 1: in the UK, and you've got one going in New
Speaker 1: Zealand as well. Right, you've got a couple of them,
Speaker 1: and these are typically going to be a whitewash. Is
Speaker 1: that situation that's going on in New Zealand? I guess yeah.
Speaker 4: They make it out like something's actually happening. Nothing's hattening.
Speaker 3: It's just's plicate.
Speaker 4: The messes that there was some oh let's find it,
Speaker 4: Oh this could have been done. You know, maybe we
Speaker 4: should have locked down harder earlier.
Speaker 5: Maybe that should have been.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's an absolute gas, like David, and it's really
Speaker 3: disappointing to see people buying into the stuff. And obviously
Speaker 3: the government run these so called inquiries. They appoint people
Speaker 3: they say are independent, but of course they are these
Speaker 3: people that already go along with the establishment narrative, et cetera.
Speaker 3: So here in New Zealand, to give you an idea
Speaker 3: of what a joke it was, the the people that
Speaker 3: propagated the scam. So the big names like the Director
Speaker 3: General of Health and the Minister of Health and yeah,
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister at that time are doing All of
Speaker 3: them were excused at the last minute. They didn't have
Speaker 3: to answer any questions and because you know, the public
Speaker 3: had a lot of questions for them, but suddenly at
Speaker 3: the last minute they announced no, they don't have to
Speaker 3: say anything. That's you know, they were running the scam,
Speaker 3: but that's nothing to do, you know it. It were
Speaker 3: really bizarre and in then your head, it's really sad
Speaker 3: to see because you had these groups going to the
Speaker 3: inquiry and presenting serious information which was quickly dismissed because
Speaker 3: the government would then just counter it with their quote
Speaker 3: expert who would say, oh, no, that's not correct. I
Speaker 3: can't get into the details why that's not correct. But
Speaker 3: because I'm an expert, I just know this stuff. So yeah,
Speaker 3: complete waste of time. But I mean countries like New
Speaker 3: Zealand and the UK, Yeah, they love this sort of thing.
Speaker 3: You know, they're Royal inquiries or their national inquiries and stuff.
Speaker 3: We do that.
Speaker 1: We'll have exercise, We'll have congressional committees that look into
Speaker 1: something like Benghazi and they just go back and forth,
Speaker 1: nothing ever comes of it. We had the Warrant Commission
Speaker 1: when JFK was assassinated, and what we got out of
Speaker 1: that was this magic bullet theory. So maybe that's the
Speaker 1: Maybe that's why the public is not pressing for this,
Speaker 1: or it might just be apathy, which is kind of
Speaker 1: what I'm thinking it is. I'm thinking it's not so
Speaker 1: much you know, we've tried this before and then ever
Speaker 1: tell us the truth. It's not that kind of cynicism.
Speaker 1: I think it's really apathy from the American public. And
Speaker 1: that's the thing that really concerns me. We didn't even
Speaker 1: try to get any answers here in America.
Speaker 4: But I in some ways I sympathize because everyone is
Speaker 4: saturated with constant fear and drama and war and whatever.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just it's it's overwhelming, and I mean
Speaker 4: the things I take that are really positive, Like we
Speaker 4: talked about earlier, it was just that are many many
Speaker 4: people are regretting that they ever took the vaccine. They're
Speaker 4: not willing to be tricked again. There's this huge distrust
Speaker 4: within the medical system. People are fearful of it and
Speaker 4: don't want to kind of be involved with it, and
Speaker 4: it's questioning all sorts of other things like virology. And
Speaker 4: I think it's that is the great thing about it
Speaker 4: is we have to take the positives and everything comes
Speaker 4: from the people. It can't come from I mean, the
Speaker 4: government is just so as you know, it's just so controlled.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: And that's why we really focus, David, as you know,
Speaker 3: with our publications, is to get people to the point
Speaker 3: where they can see, oh, this contagion is not what
Speaker 3: I've been told because look at this influenza Spanish flu
Speaker 3: experiments they didn't work. Look at the measles, they never
Speaker 3: ever showed it was contagious. Despite these things, common colds
Speaker 3: didn't work in their forty year history of trying these experiments.
Speaker 3: And once you get people to see that stuff, they
Speaker 3: can't unsee it, so they don't need to then go
Speaker 3: back through and repeat the pros because one of the
Speaker 3: worst things you'll see is people getting into arguments about
Speaker 3: face masks, for instance, and if they can see that
Speaker 3: there's no contagion in the first place, the face mask
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with the whole world. Now, face
Speaker 3: masks they do have uses, So for people that work
Speaker 3: in industry where there's particulate matter in the factories or environment,
Speaker 3: it's really important. But face masks and not they should
Speaker 3: not be a discussion within Yeah, and.
Speaker 1: That was one of the things we were talking about
Speaker 1: at the time. You know, they're saying, Okay, virus particles
Speaker 1: are this size, and if you look at the size
Speaker 1: of the filters, like it's going to work for that.
Speaker 1: They even put it on the side of the box.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like going to protect you against any virus.
Speaker 1: And yet it was mandated for this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: That's what I was saying about when I'm talking about
Speaker 1: when I said, if you create a science fiction world,
Speaker 1: you've got to have some consistent rules within it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So not tell me that you got this tiny particle
Speaker 1: and then tell me that I've got to It's like
Speaker 1: saying that you're going to keep masqie Is out by
Speaker 1: using a chain link fence. It is going to work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, totally.
Speaker 3: And that's what we think is we call them distraction
Speaker 3: narratives because they're downstream from the key issues, and we
Speaker 3: always say to people, go upstream is contagion, I think.
Speaker 2: And it's the same with vaccination.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: We know that there are some researchers who focus on
Speaker 3: the epidemiology of vaccines, and that's fine because they often
Speaker 3: show they can refute vaccines that way. But we also
Speaker 3: encourage people to go upstream and say the epidemiology doesn't
Speaker 3: even matter because the foundational science fails, and not just
Speaker 3: on one, but on everything. On all of virology, on
Speaker 3: all of the bacterial so called infections, none of them
Speaker 3: show that there are microbes that cause disease. Now, you
Speaker 3: do get some microbes that increase in numbers during certain
Speaker 3: diseases like pneumonia, et cetera, it's not there's no experiment
Speaker 3: that ever showed that they cause the disease.
Speaker 1: A consequence in other words, right, a consequence of the
Speaker 1: disease and affect of the disease are not the cause totally.
Speaker 3: And once people get this that they can see, oh
Speaker 3: my goodness, there is the gem. Theory is wrong. It
Speaker 3: should never have been called a theory. It was a hypothesis,
Speaker 3: and the hypothesis was refuted over and over again. The
Speaker 3: experiments kept on failing, and they just had to keep
Speaker 3: making up these new narratives to keep people in this mode.
Speaker 3: And once people see it, as I say, they don't
Speaker 3: even worry about these downstream arguments, and straight away they say, well,
Speaker 3: that's fine because it doesn't bother me. And you know,
Speaker 3: it's giving people that knowledge not to be afraid, because
Speaker 3: you know, it's one thing for people to realize that
Speaker 3: vaccines aren't useful, but it's way more beneficial for them
Speaker 3: ours and their family to know hate.
Speaker 2: You're not going to You're not going to catch diseases,
Speaker 2: diseases build up from within.
Speaker 3: You're not other people are not going to make you
Speaker 3: sick in the sense that they're going to give you
Speaker 3: some sort of infectious microbe. And once that way of
Speaker 3: thinking disappears, we find that people were just they're free
Speaker 3: basically they've left that cage.
Speaker 4: The other thing just touching what you're saying before about
Speaker 4: masks and things.
Speaker 5: What really woke me up in a.
Speaker 4: Way in twenty twenty was when you see that the
Speaker 4: fraud is right in front of you. So the fraud
Speaker 4: what I saw strongly when really started to question things,
Speaker 4: was the tests, and that the tests themselves, when the
Speaker 4: PCR tests were being used, would say these are not diagnostic,
Speaker 4: and I thought, how can this be? And that's before
Speaker 4: you even go upstream like Matsius and you go, oh
Speaker 4: my gosh, there's no such thing as as stars CoV
Speaker 4: two doesn't even exist when you can see it with
Speaker 4: open eyes and go, oh my gosh, it's right in
Speaker 4: my face here on the mask peckets.
Speaker 5: It says that these won't work, and.
Speaker 4: Yet people are walking around with them, and you think,
Speaker 4: how can this be? And that following that road will
Speaker 4: eventually lead you to freedom, going I don't need to
Speaker 4: be apart, I don't need to partake in these rituals anymore.
Speaker 1: It truly was a bad science fiction movie, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: And I remember there was head of state in me
Speaker 1: it was Africa or something, where he tested some fruit
Speaker 1: and he got a positive test on it. But I
Speaker 1: had an MS listener who has worked in the field
Speaker 1: for decades and he was very skeptical about all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and he had somebody open up on these packages and
Speaker 1: run it straight through without touching anything else and got
Speaker 1: a positive. So you look at all this stuff, and
Speaker 1: again the guy who developed it said, you can't use
Speaker 1: this for diagnostic purposes. Kerrie Mollis said that, and so
Speaker 1: knowing all that stuff, I got to say, it was
Speaker 1: still you haven't been in the back of your mind.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, you know, you hear all this, you know.
Speaker 1: I was absolutely convinced because of the the war game,
Speaker 1: the germ games that they've been doing. The first one
Speaker 1: two months before nine to eleven, Dark Winter. I knew
Speaker 1: what that was. I'd been tipped off by somebody said
Speaker 1: they're talking about Dark Winter two and you know what
Speaker 1: that was about. And it's like, yeah, I do, you know,
Speaker 1: and so be careful watch out for this. And then
Speaker 1: they came out it was exactly what they had practiced,
Speaker 1: you know, for twenty years, the first one just two
Speaker 1: months before nine to eleven, and so I knew it
Speaker 1: was a hoax, but you still have in the back
Speaker 1: of your mind. You know what, if you know there's
Speaker 1: this little thing, but if you understand what you're telling people,
Speaker 1: then it is the final pandemic and you don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about it anymore. The truth sets you free,
Speaker 1: doesn't it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, And I think it's getting people into that mindset,
Speaker 3: like Sam says, of just not participating in the rituals.
Speaker 2: You just you completely get out of it.
Speaker 3: And people say, well, you need to take a test,
Speaker 3: and you say, well, no, I don't. There's no need
Speaker 3: for me to do that because it's it's not a
Speaker 3: diagnostic test. Or people will say well you need to
Speaker 3: wear a mask and you say, well, why, I'm not
Speaker 3: on a building site. I'm not breathing in dust, so
Speaker 3: that's not a thing. It's yeah, it's getting them well
Speaker 3: and truly out of that. And yeah, as you say,
Speaker 3: these exercises they were doing, they date right back and
Speaker 3: those decades leading up and obviously in the twenty tens,
Speaker 3: these tabletop exercises started becoming more common, and you know,
Speaker 3: right up until COVID time and in the Final Pandemic.
Speaker 3: In our book, we also exposed that they were in
Speaker 3: the late twenty tens. So around twenty seventeen twenty eighteen,
Speaker 3: suddenly the whole anti vaxer thing becomes big, and they're
Speaker 3: white papers and they start talking about how this problem
Speaker 3: with anti vaxes and how they're going to combat it
Speaker 3: and all.
Speaker 2: This kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: Because what was interesting was that these organizations who are
Speaker 3: linked up to globalist organizations, pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment,
Speaker 3: none of them were really talking about this until that
Speaker 3: two years before COVID, and clearly they had anticipated that
Speaker 3: there was going to be a rise in anti vaccine sentiment.
Speaker 3: But one thing that was interesting was that they didn't
Speaker 3: anticipate the rise in people who could see straight through
Speaker 3: germ theory and virology, and they didn't see. It was
Speaker 3: people like Sam that they didn't see coming because you know,
Speaker 3: she's a network TV doctor, you know, presenting generally mainstream stuff.
Speaker 3: And then suddenly the COVID narrative is so preposterous that
Speaker 3: people like us said, well, hang on a minute, we
Speaker 3: need to say something here. And of course the whole
Speaker 3: house of cards came down with you know, these alleged pandemics.
Speaker 1: I really do appreciate and admiria integrity. Sam, you're the
Speaker 1: only person I know that's lost to careers over this,
Speaker 1: not on TV, but in terms of medicine as well,
Speaker 1: the way they've come after you and punitively come after
Speaker 1: you as well. And so I really do appreciate your
Speaker 1: integrity sticking to the truth. It is so important what
Speaker 1: you're doing. Tell people again, is the website the best
Speaker 1: place for people to find you? And can they get
Speaker 1: your books there? At the website? Is that the best place?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Thank you, David, Yeah, please, it's because you know, we
Speaker 4: do the censorship dance to like you do. It's always
Speaker 4: just especially substicks being tricky. So no, the best place
Speaker 4: to find us as always the website Doctor Zambailey dot com.
Speaker 4: And you can there's a tab there which has got
Speaker 4: all of our books and you can download Mark's latest
Speaker 4: one for free or buy it if you wish too.
Speaker 5: That's all good.
Speaker 4: We just wish to spread that information and hopefully reduce
Speaker 4: people's fear and the process.
Speaker 3: So yeah, and people, there's a search bar on the
Speaker 3: website so people can just because we've covered hundreds and
Speaker 3: hundreds of topics, because people will say, hey, what about rabies,
Speaker 3: et cetera, So we've got a search part there and
Speaker 3: people can just type in these terms and hopefully we've
Speaker 3: covered it already.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a lot of information. Yes, yes, I'm also
Speaker 5: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: I'm also on YouTube but I'm hanging on by a
Speaker 4: thread there and yeah, just so you know, but there's yeah,
Speaker 4: substack and also I'm on Telegram and Instagram in in
Speaker 4: a little way.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so just and people can find you at
Speaker 1: doctor Sam Bailey. That's d R s A. M. Bailey
Speaker 1: b A I L e Y dot com. Right, that's
Speaker 1: a boy store. They can find go directly there and
Speaker 1: then you don't have any people in between trying to
Speaker 1: hide you. And that's what the search engine have become.
Speaker 1: They become not a tool to find things, but a
Speaker 1: tool to to hide things, especially people like doctors Bailey.
Speaker 1: And so I really do appreciate what you're doing. I
Speaker 1: know that it's cost you a great deal. You didn't
Speaker 1: become billionaires like the people at fires in moderna instead
Speaker 1: just the opposite, and you've continued to push the truth
Speaker 1: out there to help people. I really do appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how much I appreciate that. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you, David, thank you, Fortune do I appreciate it,
Speaker 1: have a good day. Well, I want to give you
Speaker 1: a little bit of an appendix here to this interview,
Speaker 1: because after we stopped the interview, they were still on
Speaker 1: the line and we talked a little bit about what
Speaker 1: they've been going through and they had a fascinating story
Speaker 1: that you've got to hear. So here's what they had
Speaker 1: to say. You tried to come to the United States
Speaker 1: and what happened when you tried to make the trip.
Speaker 4: So in June of last year, I was trying to
Speaker 4: buy some stationery from the shop and what happened was
Speaker 4: none of my cards would work. And I was like,
Speaker 4: this is really weird because I just paid off my
Speaker 4: credit card. And so I went to the bank and
Speaker 4: then the bank teller wrote on a piece of paper
Speaker 4: and said have you recently been made bankrupt?
Speaker 5: And she slid it.
Speaker 4: To me and I was like, what, No, Like I
Speaker 4: would know something like this, wouldn't I. And she's like, yeah, yeah, definitely,
Speaker 4: And then she went away and she's on lots of
Speaker 4: different phone calls and then she comes back to me
Speaker 4: and shows me this the website which is for in
Speaker 4: New Zealand. It's the Insolvency website and my name is
Speaker 4: on there. And three days earlier a high court had
Speaker 4: declared me bankrupt because of this money from the Medical
Speaker 4: Council that they say I owe the one hundred and
Speaker 4: seventy thousand dollars one hundred and sixty thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So just to be clear, it wasn't because Sam
Speaker 3: was insolvent or bankrupt. It was just because she had
Speaker 3: never paid the medical quote authorities their COVID fines, which
Speaker 3: you know, one hundred and sixty thousand dollars or something,
Speaker 3: and they did all this stuff in secret.
Speaker 1: So it's like a bank robbery, except the banker is
Speaker 1: the one to pass you the money.
Speaker 4: It was insane, honestly, David like when it happened because
Speaker 4: it caused such a shock.
Speaker 5: And then from there because.
Speaker 4: We were supposed to be going to the States for
Speaker 4: this trip and you're not allowed to technically travel overseas
Speaker 4: without permission, you know, because they think you're going to
Speaker 4: abscond with money or something, and so I thought, oh, no,
Speaker 4: I'm not going to be able to go to the States,
Speaker 4: and this is something I was just so looking forward to.
Speaker 4: And anyway, we fought it in the courts went to
Speaker 4: the High Court two weeks before we were due to
Speaker 4: go to the States because they hadn't done their due process.
Speaker 4: They never told me, they never served me with any
Speaker 4: I had no information whatsoever that this had been going
Speaker 4: on behind the scenes.
Speaker 5: So I but I the.
Speaker 4: Judge reserved the decision, so I didn't know whether I'll
Speaker 4: be able to travel, And anyway, I just I believe
Speaker 4: in God, and I went. We flew up and Mark
Speaker 4: and I split up our gear so because Mark was
Speaker 4: speaking at this conference, and so I was supposed to.
Speaker 4: Mark had the laptop and I had the car keys
Speaker 4: and some New Zealand money, and they said no, And
Speaker 4: then we went through the you know, the smart things gates,
Speaker 4: and then it did the green tick and I basically
Speaker 4: I just broke down crying because I finally knew that
Speaker 4: I could go and we hadn't been the last time
Speaker 4: we'd been to the States was in twenty sixteen. And
Speaker 4: for us, this is such a huge thing because it
Speaker 4: was meeting all these people that we've been working with
Speaker 4: since COVID, and I've always wanted to meet, and now
Speaker 4: I knew I could give them people hugs and like
Speaker 4: actually talk and it was just such an amazing We
Speaker 4: had such a wonderful time.
Speaker 5: So and then when we came.
Speaker 4: Back, I got the news that the bankruptcy had been
Speaker 4: a nulls. So it was just an amazing time.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the judge rule that it was unlawful the actions
Speaker 3: that they'd taken, trying to seize bank accounts, etc. They're
Speaker 3: still actively going after saying that Sam has to pay
Speaker 3: these COVID fines.
Speaker 1: Even though the judges ruled it unlawful, they're still coming
Speaker 1: after you.
Speaker 3: Well, he ruled the process that they took as unlawful,
Speaker 3: not the underlying claim that Sam needs to pay these
Speaker 3: COVID fines. But it is preposterous and many doctors in
Speaker 3: New Zealand are starting to challenge this stuff.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: They're just saying, look, this is outrageous. Why are we
Speaker 3: getting six figure fines for questioning something. There's no patient
Speaker 3: has ever come forward to say they were harmed. They
Speaker 3: can't find anyone in the entire nation who got harmed
Speaker 3: by anything that Sam said, or that any of the
Speaker 3: other doctors said who were practicing at the time.
Speaker 2: But this is.
Speaker 3: The world we're living in where they are trying to
Speaker 3: scare This is we think it's a good sign that
Speaker 3: this is how desperate it's become that you have to
Speaker 3: give doctors six figure fines if they don't agree with
Speaker 3: the narrative. And I think that's all they've got now,
Speaker 3: is these financial penalties. They know that they can't stop
Speaker 3: people from speaking out. And yeah, so that's I think
Speaker 3: we have to see the positive side of things. And
Speaker 3: it was quite satisfying when the judge rolled in sans
Speaker 3: favor and told them it was unlawful what they were doing.
Speaker 4: And it makes you much resilient, like you said, David,
Speaker 4: like I think in terms of realizing, Okay, this is
Speaker 4: this is all they've got, Like they tried to get
Speaker 4: me to sign a gagged a way back in September
Speaker 4: twenty twenty and I wouldn't, you know, And I'll never
Speaker 4: I'm so pleased every step I've taken, it's been an
Speaker 4: empowering thing and I feel great that this is all
Speaker 4: they've got. Like they're still worried about me long me,
Speaker 4: I'm not, you know, an agree the person that it's like,
Speaker 4: this is this is the threat.
Speaker 1: That's right, Well, one person who was determined to tell
Speaker 1: the truth. That's the key thing that they can't handle.
Speaker 1: And of course it's not science either if you can't
Speaker 1: handle skepticism. You know, science only advances when somebody questions
Speaker 1: the narrative, and they should never be in fear of
Speaker 1: trying to explain themselves and what they're doing. Then it
Speaker 1: obviously isn't science. It's not based on data and the
Speaker 1: scientific method. That's what I've said all along about so
Speaker 1: many of these different frauds. We see this type of
Speaker 1: thing happening over and over again, but it really underscores,
Speaker 1: I think the fact that you kind of see this
Speaker 1: as a ministry. You see this as a way of
Speaker 1: helping people, and that is really your heart and your motivation.
Speaker 1: And I really appreciate that. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: doing that, Really do appreciate that. Thank you both of you,
Speaker 1: doctors Mark and Sam Bailey, God bless thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, David than you, thank you.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll fit that in somehow that was too important
Speaker 1: to let go. Yeah, absolutely so. I got the same
Speaker 1: thing when they came after me, in a sense, no
Speaker 1: explanation as to what was going on. It was just PayPal.
Speaker 1: They all also owned Venmo. When they shut me down
Speaker 1: on both of those platforms at the same time, I
Speaker 1: spent two hours on the phone with the guy, and
Speaker 1: the guy he kept going on. He goes, well, I
Speaker 1: can't see any reason given here at all. Oh, just
Speaker 1: a message shut this account down, is right now, you know,
Speaker 1: and no explanation given. I've never been given an explanation.
Speaker 1: I don't have the money to sue them in court
Speaker 1: and get an explanation, so I know what it is. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to spend the time and the money
Speaker 1: to try to get confirmation of it. So yeah, but
Speaker 1: you have gone through more than anybody I know, and
Speaker 1: so I really do appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It's always an honor to talk to you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, David. Yeah, and so pleased to see
Speaker 3: you doing well, thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, in spite of a lot of different things.
Speaker 1: But again, it's been prayer. The common man. They created
Speaker 1: common Core, They've dumbed down our children. They created common
Speaker 1: Past to track and control us, their comments project to
Speaker 1: make sure the commoners own nothing, and the communist future.
Speaker 1: They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary. But
Speaker 1: each of us has worth and dignity created in the
Speaker 1: image of God. That is what we have in common.
Speaker 1: That is what they want to take away. Their most
Speaker 1: powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know
Speaker 1: everything about us, while they hide everything from us.
Speaker 2: It's time to turn that around.
Speaker 1: And expose what they want to hide. Please share the
Speaker 1: information and links you'll find at the Davidknightshow dot com.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you
Speaker 1: can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.
Speaker 1: Ddavidknightshow dot com.
Speaker 3: The