food news


Dr Sam Bailey

Dr Sam Bailey
Sat, 13 Aug 2022 09:20:58 +0000

The Lazy Lies of Roger Watson

Post views 43,877

Dr Roger Watson was introduced to us earlier this year when he wrote a clumsy hit piece against Sam that was published on The Daily Sceptic website. Watson clearly had scant understanding of the work we had produced and his attack against Sam had little to do with actual science. Sam wrote in her rebuttal that, "much of his article was ad hominem in nature and doesn't need to be dignified with a response but I will proceed to address his inaccurate scientific claims point by point." Watson was scorched in the comments section of his own article and Sam's rebuttal exposed the large gaps in his knowledge of virology. His confusion regarding the key issue of virus isolation continues and his own explanations are not even internally consistent, as is patently evident in the following example:

"In fact, a great many viruses have been purified, often against the odds."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic, March 2022

"…viruses can't be purified; that is not in doubt - they are shown to exist by other experimental methods…"

Dr Roger Watson, by email, July 2022

We never imagined that Watson would want to come back for another round so were surprised when he published another smear piece, this time on a platform calling itself the Country Squire Magazine. The article was libellous and we considered launching a defamation claim before realising that someone else had beaten us to it with their own legal action against the little rag. By all accounts the perpetrators behind this website are in deep strife and have resorted to public begging to bail themselves out of a potential £500,000 bill. Interestingly, Watson is the current Editor-in-Chief of Elsevier's Nurse Education in Practice, but turned to the troubled Country Squire to publish his character assassination attempt against us.

Incredibly, the article was titled "Baileys' Quoque". Tu quoque means using ad hominem attacks to portray an opponent's behaviour and actions as inconsistent with their arguments, i.e. as being hypocritical. Watson did not give a single example of us using this fallacious argumentation technique and simply asserted that it is evident in our work. He then referred to a blog that stated, "ad hominem attacks are used to provide an excuse for avoiding scientific debate." However, there were no examples of the Baileys using ad hominem arguments in that blog either.

Watson's latest piece did not cite any scientific material for his claims and he was certainly not shy in employing fallacious arguments he baselessly accuses others of using. In his first Sceptic article, he argued that the evidence for viruses can be made through appeals to common opinion, where he provided Dr Mike Yeadon as an example:

"After all, anti (Covid) vaxxer supreme, Dr. Mike Yeadon made it clear in his excellent interview with Neil Oliver on GB News that he believes a unique virus exists."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic, March 2022

Mike Yeadon subsequently performed his own investigations into the methodologies of the virologists and declared that not only was there no evidence for SARS-CoV-2, but that no respiratory viruses exist period. Now, according to Watson, we should no longer trust Yeadon for expressing this newfound scepticism about pathogenic viruses:

"Mike Yeadon, former scientific researcher and vice president at drugs giant Pfizer Inc. who, until this point, seemed like a voice of reason over Covid-19 to sign."

Dr Roger Watson, Country Squire Magazine, August 2022

It is not the first time Watson has turned on someone when they don't suit his purpose. In his recent Country Squire piece he spoke disparagingly of Dr Andrew Kaufman and linked him to a smear article on a McGill University site. However, in 2020 Watson was a co-signatory with Kaufman in a letter challenging Boris Johnson to prove that, "a virus exists which causes COVID-19"! If Watson managed to refute Kaufman's and the other co-signatories' arguments since that time, none of us are aware of how or why this took place.

In the Country Squire article Watson stated that, "the eponymous Popperian method of conducting science works through disproof of hypotheses and, unless such disproof can be established the hypothesis is extant." What Watson was trying to say about virology is not clear, a feature of much of his writing on the topic. We have pointed out that virology has never performed properly controlled experiments and thus has not followed the scientific method. At the heart of the Popperian method are hypothesis-driven and falsifiable experiments, so by bringing in this argument he shot himself in the foot. Inadvertently he has drawn attention to the very aspect that the virologists are trying to avoid – falsifying their own hypothesis by performing valid control experiments.

He then stated, "one may choose to believe or not in the outcome, but one must also 'fight fair 'if one is to try to overturn 100 years of established evidence based theory." I am also for a fair fight but if 'by their fruits ye shall know them' calls out the false prophets, then Watson is in good company…

Dr Watson, can you please show us one publication that follows the scientific method and demonstrates the existence of a virus amongst the, "100 years of established evidence based theory"?

Watson then started mindlessly repeating the claims made by Steve Kirsch in regard to the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement. He reported, "Baileys & Co. outline a series of perfectly good experiments in my view and their challenge has been accepted but, while they claim to have the funding, they have refused to give it to one scientist, Dr Kevin McCairn." He then referred to a website setup by McCairn himself. The "Settling the Virus Debate" statement clearly says, "5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs." Thus, it should have be perfectly lucid to Watson that McCairn disqualified himself from participating in the experiments due to the latter's self-publicised announcements.

Watson continued to parrot Kirsch stating, "as explained by Steve Kirsch, several virologists have offered to enter a debate with them, but true to form, they have not taken up the offer." Watson is misleading the public again as he knows that it was Steve Kirsch who backed out of a debate challenge that he issued in January 2022. Watson has read the "Settling the Virus Debate" document which states, "rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid." Like Kirsch, he is distracting from the fact that valid control experiments have not been carried out in virology. So, what would the proposed debate be about now Dr Watson? 

Why we don't need control experiments in virology?

Watson then decided to mention the online debate that newscaster Tim Truth organised between myself and Kevin McCairn. Watson incorrectly stated that, "it quickly becomes apparent why Dr Bailey agreed; Tim Truth is a virus denier himself and barely let Dr McCairn speak whilst repeatedly inviting Dr Bailey to do so." In fact, prior to the debate, McCairn had been given hours of air time over multiple appearances on Tim Truth's platform. Neither of the other parties were known to me and Sam's website received the following email from Tim Truth on May 13th, 2022:

Hi Drs Sam & Mark,
I'm in contact with Dr. Kevin McCairn who is of the opinion the virus is real and thinks it was engineered in a lab. I'm trying to set up a debate between him and someone on the no virus side of the schism. He says he's down. Would either or both of you like to go up against him? I would serve as the impartial moderator and everyone could use the video as they wish. If not, maybe you know of someone else I can ask?

We were sceptical that someone from the 'pro-virus' camp was genuinely wanting to take part in a civilised debate so Sam's email response on the same day was:

Hi Tim, as long as it's not a stunt of some sort, Mark will happily come on your platform to participate as he is our debating specialist. Mark feels it is likely that he will be addressing the typical claims made by the establishment virologists but if that will be useful for your audience I guess that is fine?

Watson gave a highly disingenuous account of the debate, claiming that I preferred to, "issue a series of scientifically unsubstantiated and untestable statements," but characteristically provided not one example of such a statement. He concluded that, "despite the one-sided nature of the debate, Dr McCairn won hands down." From what I understand, the only one who claimed that result was McCairn and Watson does himself no favours by endorsing him. McCairn's behaviour was farcical during the debate, from his inability to make an opening statement, his inability to discuss the methodologies of the virologists, his avoidance of discussing what a valid control experiment involved, and his childish ad hominem outbursts. In a case of the blind leading the naked with regard to the virus existence issue, Watson encouraged his readers to watch the debate. I would encourage the same, although with the caveat that McCairn's lack of knowledge concerning virology and his time-wasting antics annoyed a great deal of the audience.

The conclusion to Watson's article was that the Baileys are making a fortune by luring people in with our own extensively-researched content that we provide to the public…for free. He revealed that a book is for sale on our website – yes Roger, that is Sam's Virus Mania and authors are often known to sell their own books. He then speculates that the website makes, "a staggering $1,500,000 annually." How does Watson come up with this fictional figure? By using modelling perhaps inspired by Neil Ferguson he multiplied $5 by the number of non-paying subscribers to the Dr Sam Bailey YouTube channel. I've previously suggested to him that he could contact us to check the facts but instead he chooses to publicly embarrass himself with such schoolboy errors.

Watson's bloopers continued when he stated, "both Baileys are medically qualified doctors who have abandoned allopathic medicine (the use of tested remedies) for naturopathy (the use of untested remedies)." Again his struggles with basic terminology are cringeworthy. Allopathic means the use of modalities such drugs, surgery, and radiation – it does not mean "tested remedies." (Watson has spoken against the COVID-19 vaccines so must be performing mental gymnastics to decide where they fit in to his definition.) Naturopathy means avoiding the use of drugs and most surgeries, instead focusing on dietary and lifestyle measures. The latter is a well and truly "tested remedy" that has nourished humanity for generations and is embraced by the Baileys for our own family. We are happy to leave the promotion of germ theory, imaginary pathogens, other vaccines, and pharmaceuticals to Watson. At this rate he's probably one of their worst salesmen and his latest efforts have hopefully nudged a few more in the right direction for better health.

Sadly, I have little hope that he will engage on the appropriate scientific level but I offer a final question for Dr Watson:

Do you agree that any experiment whose results are claimed to provide the evidence for the existence of a virus must affirm, beyond reasonable doubt, all the properties of a virus as encompassed by its definition*?

*a tiny disease-causing replication-competent intracellular parasite consisting of a genome and a proteinaceous shell.

The post The Lazy Lies of Roger Watson first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

Dr Sam Bailey
Mon, 25 Jul 2022 11:27:08 +0000

Warnings Signs You Have Been Tricked By Virologists…Again

Recently I joined a group of 20 doctors and scientists around the world who put their names to the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement.  In this two-page document we suggested, "rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid."  Some of the individuals who believe that the existence of pathogenic viruses is an established fact, proceeded to immediately disagree.  One was Steve Kirsch, who attempted to distract from the central tenet of our statement, being that virology had failed to carry out scientific control experiments.  In reality, it is clear that the virologists have not shown that their techniques of "viral" cultures, genomics, and clinical diagnostics are valid even on their own terms.  Indeed, I have not seen Kirsch or anyone else provide evidence that the appropriately-controlled experiments we suggested in the statement have been performed.   

Kirsch admitted, "this is not my field of expertise at all. I rely on other people around me who I trust."  I have written a previous article about why I think Kirsch should be careful about trusting other "experts."  However, he continues to favour this approach and one of his trusted parties includes the pathologist/virologist Dr Sin Lee.  Lee wrote, "Tom Cowan claimed the virus has not been isolated. But the virus has been isolated by the CDC and marketed by ATCC as the control materials. I bought the virus as the control for my CLIA tests. Many others do."  We have covered the follies concerning these claims of "isolation" many times and the CDC certainly have no studies demonstrating the existence of a pathogenic particle termed 'SARS-CoV-2'.  The ATCC simply repeat the claim by the CDC that their listed product contains a "virus" – however as I outlined in my first "Warning Signs" article, following the trail back to the start does not lead to any evidence of a virus in the biological potions being passed around.

On 18 July 2022, Lee sent the following email to Dr Tom Cowan:

I have a Preprint manuscript currently under peer review as follows. :// There is irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus exists and keeps mutating. If Dr. Tom Cowan disagrees, please write a critique to challenge my data and interpretation online in the open. I will respond. Other scientists can join in for the debate.

Dr Sin H. Lee, 18 July 2022

The preprint paper is titled, "Implementation of the eCDC/WHO Recommendation for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants and Its Challenges."  To expose the problems of virology it is crucial to examine the methodology section of any publication and in this case it is no different.  In the "material and methods" section Lee stated that, "five (5) selective nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from non-hospitalized patients with respiratory infection, which were confirmed to be true-positive for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant by Sanger sequencing."  Here we are straight into the deep end of virology's circular reasoning: the "virus" has been confirmed to exist on the basis of detected sequences from some nasopharyngeal swabs.  There is nowhere in the paper that any evidence is provided for the existence of an actual virus, that is, a tiny particle that acts as an obligate intracellular parasite and is capable of causing disease in a host.

The claim that the specimens were, "true-positive[s] for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant," simply means some sequences that were previously deposited on genetic databases, and fraudulently declared to be "viral," were being detected again. It doesn't make any difference which sequencing technique is used, in this case bidirectional Sanger sequencing because the crucial issue is the provenance and clinical relevance of these detected sequences.  This is the foundational issue in the entire COVID-19 fraud: there is no virus, simply sequences falsely claimed to be evidence of an actual virus.  The World Health Organisation helped orchestrate the deception when it declared that a confirmed 'case' of infection with the invented virus is simply the detection of some of these sequences.  We have covered this absurd circular reasoning in much of our work including in Sam's 2020 video "What Is A Covid-19 Case?"  (And rapid antigen tests are covered here.)

Back to Lee's paper and in the following paragraph of the "material and methods" section, he described the, "RNA Extraction from Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens," as follows:

As previously reported [25-27], the cellular pellet derived from about 1 mL of the nasopharyngeal swab rinse along with 0.2 mL supernatant after centrifugation was first digested in a buffered solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate and proteinase K. The digestate was extracted with phenol. The nucleic acid was precipitated by ethanol and redissolved in 50 μL of DEPC-treated water. 

In other words, there was no step to demonstrate: (a) there were any "viral" particles contained within the samples, or (b) that the RNA came from such imagined viral particles.  A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was then applied to these undifferentiated samples to generate amplicons ranging from 398 to 707 nucleotides in length.  Most of these sequences spanned the so-called 'Spike protein' gene of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome, as that was the area of interest for the study.  In the next step it was stated: 

The crude nested PCR products showing an expected amplicon at agarose gel electrophoresis were subjected to automated Sanger sequencing without further purification.  

In fact, at no stage was an attempt undertaken to purify any entity from the crude nasopharyngeal specimens.  The entire basis of the study was built on the unestablished premise that the genetic sequences detected were already known to come from inside a pathogenic particle.  

The "results" section then detailed the nucleotide sequences of the various amplicons that were generated from the crude samples.  Some of the codons (three-nucleotide units that encode a particular amino acid or stop signal) were described as "mutated" on the basis of comparisons to other sequences previously deposited on the genetic databanks.  The use of the word 'mutation' is problematic in itself, because it implies that a genome has been altered.  A genome must belong to a discrete biological entity, so virology is once again misusing terminology to imply that a certain proof has been established.  Lee's study was simply looking at RNA sequences in uncontrolled experiments.  

Those of us that dispute the virus narrative point out that no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus.  Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance.  The "mutations" only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature.  There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can't imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination.

In our first COVID-19 Fraud essay we documented the original invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu's team who assembled an in silico "genome" from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single 'case' and documented in, "A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China."  Their in silico construct served as a reference for others to then "find" the same "virus" around the world, without evidence that such a particle actually existed.

In our soon to be published follow-up COVID-19 Fraud essay we will provide a more detailed explanation as to why detecting nucleic acid sequences per se in crude specimens or cell cultures does not provide the required evidence for "viruses."  In the essay we will also follow the trail back to the first ever declarations of "coronavirus genomes" in the 1980s and show that no viruses were demonstrated in any part of the trail. However, such sequence data is used to promulgate the illusion of "virus" family trees, or claimed "mutations" as discussed above.  

Dr Lee's paper does not even appear to be designed to demonstrate the existence of a postulated disease-causing particle.  I sent him several questions including, "I have read the preprint and there does not appear to be a hypothesis presented – is that correct?", "In your study there did not appear to be any controls (e.g. checking for selected sequences in other nasopharyngeal specimens from humans said not to have the alleged virus) – presumably that was by design?" and "What is your definition of a 'virus' in the paper?"  Lee responded, "your questions are irrelevant to you [sic] intention to write a comment or critique on the manuscript involved," and suggested I write something in the preprint website's comment section.  

Lee has provided a descriptive paper that omits a falsifiable hypothesis so it is unclear why he would present it as experimental evidence, let alone "irrefutable" evidence of the existence of SARS-CoV-2.  His paper is inappropriately designed for this purpose and his claim engages in a circular reasoning fallacy: the genetic sequences are proffered as evidence of the virus, because it was presupposed that they come from the virus.  We are asking, "where is the virus?"

Virology has a problem: It needs to show that "A" actually exists

It's back to the drawing board for virology: it invented the theory of viruses, so whatever method it employs to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. In fact, do the virologists even have a theory? The definition of a scientific theory is:

an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Our "Settling the Virus Debate" statement proposes that the virologists need to employ the required scientific method as a starting point.  It is not looking good for them because they have not even demonstrated any internal validity on their own terms.  According to science they may not even have a theory.  If they have a hypothesis, they need to specify an independent variable (in this case the postulated "virus") and a dependent variable for analysis.  Moreover, to even get started, the independent variable must first be shown to physically exist.  I would implore Steve Kirsch to reconsider taking advice from these "experts" and to commence his own investigations into the house of virology.  By scientific accounts, it is a house of cards.

(Derived from: A. F. Chalmers, What is this thing called Science?, 2nd ed, 1982)

'Observational statements are frequently presupposed by theory. Such statements are always made in the language of some theory and will be as precise as the theoretical or conceptual framework that they utilise is precise'. In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities.  

'The observations of the naïve inductionist did not identify a virus a priori, and then set about studying its properties and characteristics. The extant presupposition of the time was that a very small germ particle existed that may explain contagion. What came thereafter arose to fulfil the presuppositional premise'.

'A popular view of scientific knowledge is that it is proven knowledge and scientific theories are derived in some righteous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based upon what we can see, hear, measure and touch. Science is objective and explicit. Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge'.

'A realistic scientific theory will consist of a complex of universal statements rather than a single statement. Further a theory will need to be augmented by auxiliary assumptions, such as laws and theories governing the use of any instruments used, for instance'.

'The premises from which the prediction is derived must also include the interconnected statements that constitute the theory under test, the initial conditions, and the auxiliary assumptions. Falsification of the theory also indicates the possibility of a failure of any number of the associated assumptions and conditions, and not necessarily of the theory itself'.



I would like to express my gratitude to Dr M. C. McGrath (New Zealand) for his constructive criticisms and inspiration for the postscript.  

The post Warnings Signs You Have Been Tricked By Virologists…Again first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

Dr Sam Bailey
Thu, 21 Jul 2022 02:16:03 +0000

Lab Leaks and other Legends

One of the biggest distractions regarding the existence of pathogenic viruses is the various "supporting" stories that appear in both the mainstream and alternative media. The controlled corporate media intentionally promulgates contagion mythology as it fuels the medico-pharmaceutical complex and vested interests. Additionally, as the last few years have demonstrated, the contagion narrative is useful for pushing globalist and technocratic agendas, as exemplified by the World Economic Forum using COVID-19 hysteria to push their "Great Reset". On the other hand, while much of the alternative media is awake to the globalist agendas and Big Pharma coverups, they continue to lend support to the existence of viruses, as well as the concept of microbial-based disease contagion in a wider sense. Unfortunately, this feeds back into the fraud (and fear) that all of the other fraud has been built upon. 

This is not a new phenomenon although the COVID-era has demonstrated how it has escalated to  engulf almost the entire planet. Virus Mania outlines the "pandemic" playbook that has been developed by the industry over several decades. It all relies on the public being duped into believing they are in perpetual danger from micro-organisms. As the book details, fraudulent science is at the heart of germ and viral theory, so that is what needs to be exposed. Once appreciated, there is no need to waste energy debating the various aspects of the latest "pandemic" when nobody buys it in the first place.       

Recently there have been stories in both the mainstream and the alternative media, stating that the World Health Organisation's Director-general, Tedros Adhanom believes, "Covid did leak from Wuhan lab." Additionally, these stories report that, "Jeffrey Sachs, leader of the Lancet Commission on COVID-19, now says that he is convinced that the pandemic started in a lab and that SARS-CoV-2 was created with the aid of U.S. biotechnology." It all sounds like a smoking gun, unless you know about virology's 'little' problems…

"Lab Leak" nonsense gets the thumbs up from Tedros

The alternative media should be wary that the COVID-19 lab-leak/engineered virus hypothesis appeared in the mainstream media as early as February 2020, as outlined in Eric Coppolino's "Chronology for Covid". This is in contrast to the extreme degree of censorship that 'no virus' claimants face. In fact, most of the Big Tech platforms completely ban such content and it never features in the mainstream media. In any case, we have previously addressed the lack of any scientific basis to "virus" gain of function claims in videos here and here. Dr Stefan Lanka has also dealt with the myth of man-made pathogens and ViroLIEgy's Mike Stone has termed such fantasies as "Gain of Fiction". In a nutshell, all claims regarding "lab leaks" come back to the same issue: if there is no evidence of a virus to start with, there is nothing to leak.

"Shock photos" featuring a face mask and a fridge - fairly conclusive evidence of "viruses"? Daily Mail, 19 April 2020.

Further fuelling the virus fear narrative and hot on the heels of declarations of monkeypox outbreaks, was an alleged "national incident" reported by Bloomberg on June 22. It included the dramatic headline, "UK's Polio-Free Status at Risk as Virus Found in London Sewage," and almost simultaneously, the United Kingdom's Health Security Agency (UKHSA) declared that:

Vaccine-like type 2 poliovirus (PV2) isolates have been found in multiple sewage samples collected from the London Beckton Sewage Treatment Works between February and June 2022…An average of 1 to 3 poliovirus isolates per year have been detected from UK sewage samples in recent years. However, these have all been single detections which are unrelated to each other. In this instance, the isolates identified between February and June 2022 are genetically related.

United Kingdom's Health Security Agency, 22 June 2022 Tweet

This of course is virology's definition of 'isolates', which does not require that any particles fulfilling the definition of a virus be found. For example, a paper describing the, "Isolation of Vaccine-Like Poliovirus Strains in Sewage Samples," was published in The Journal of Infectious Diseases in 2017. We have detailed the illegitimate methodologies of virology in much of our work and this paper utilises many of the same techniques. In brief, they took samples of raw sewage and performed "virus isolation" by adding the sewer water to abnormal cell lines (human rhabdomyosarcoma and genetically-modified mouse cells). These are conveniently used as they are said to be, "susceptible for poliovirus infection," or in order words, more likely to exhibit cytopathic effects in this application. On the basis of observing such cell breakdown in some of their in vitro experiments they declared they had, "isolated poliovirus."  

Their next step involved the fraudulent claim that, "viral RNA was purified," from the tissue culture experiments, when there had been no demonstration of any virus in their samples. Then they proceeded with genomic sequencing, including 'dirty' use of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) up to 42 cycles to "find" their selected fragments. (With the PCR, a cycle threshold around 35 indicates a single molecule was present in the original sample so beyond that the "positive" findings are usually artefact.) In any case, their generated reads were, "mapped to a set of HEV [human enterovirus] sequences using a curated database containing sequences representative of isolates from all HEV serotypes." Here we enter into virology's circular reasoning: they are claimed to be "viral" sequences because they have been previously declared as such and deposited on a genetic database. However, none of the sequences have ever been shown to come from "polioviruses", if we are talking about disease-causing infectious particles, and thus the UKHSA is misleading the public. No "viruses" are being detected in sewage samples, they are simply detecting (or at least purporting to detect) pre-selected genetic sequences on a sewer river fishing expedition.      

"Coroni" also in poop? I didn't make up this image - it actually appeared on a media platform!

This issue of misattributed genetic sequences has permeated into claims of SARS-CoV-2 being man-made, not in the fictional sense as we argue, but that an actual virus was made in a laboratory. I have been asked several times to comment on Dr Ah Kahn Syed's blog, "How to BLAST your way to the truth about the origins of COVID-19." Dr Syed claims to, "prove that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made," but his entire article is based on the unestablished premise that the sequences he analyses belong to viruses. This includes the claim that the SARS-CoV-2 "virus" contains "'HIV-1' glycoprotein 120" sequences. In 1997, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos outlined why there was no evidence that these sequences or associated proteins belong to "HIV" as there has never been isolation of the putative viral particle. It is no different 25 years later and claims that they are specific to a "virus" are unfounded. 

Just as Harry Potter is "true" in the world of J.K. Rowling's books.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos and The Perth Group have further outlined why there is no proof that "HIV" RNA is "viral" or unique (and that the HIV orthodoxy curiously allow 30-40% variation of their claimed "unique" sequences) in pages 27-43 of "HIV – a virus like no other". So, returning to Dy Syed's article, it doesn't matter how accurate his database analysis may be – the fatal flaw is the spurious information that the virologists have fed into the system. The only "viruses" being discussed are in silico constructs, rather than biological entities that have anything to do with causing harm to humans.

Virology generates a great deal of data but it is largely in a descriptive fashion, whether it be in regard to genomics, proteomics, PCR results, or "antibodies". The technology and sheer volume of this data can be overwhelming, if not seductive. However, like modern molecular biology in general, it is looking more like a data-mining chemistry pursuit rather than a science having anything to do with the understanding of nature. Perhaps the proponents should considering the warning that Sir John Maddox issued in 1988:

Is molecular biology running into a dead end?...Is there a danger, in molecular biology, that the accumulation of data will get so far ahead of its assimilation into a conceptual framework that the data will eventually prove an encumbrance? Part of the trouble is that excitement of the chase leaves little time for reflection. And there are grants for producing data, but hardly any for standing back in contemplation.

Sir John Maddox, Nature, 5 May 1988. Tweet

Similar to Dy Syed's blog, we hear claims from the virus proponents along the lines of, "what about the 11 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes on GISAID – are all these people lying?" This argument is circular reasoning as it asserts that each of the submitted "genomes" provides more evidence of the "virus" when it is simply loops of the same track. The question that needs to be asked is, "how were any of these alleged genomes created?" When this is investigated, it becomes apparent that the virologists do not want to engage in a falsifiable hypothesis-driven approach that is at the heart of the scientific method.

Virology is hiding its failures by largely engaging in descriptive science and our research into its history leads me to believe that this has been a case of self-deception in some cases and outright fraud in others. As a 2008 commentary in the journal Infection and Immunity explained, "descriptive research by itself is seldom conclusive," and, "microbiology and immunology are now experimental sciences and consequently investigators can go beyond simply describing observations to formulate hypotheses and then perform experiments to validate or refute them." In this regard, we can see that virology has painted itself into a corner and relies on other methods to keep itself afloat.

In 2021, I co-authored The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity with Dr John Bevan-Smith. We outlined why there was never any evidence of a pathogenic particle termed 'SARS-CoV-2' and thus, no basis to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are currently writing a much more extensive follow-up essay that will expose how the virologists have maintained various illusions by straying from the scientific method, not only with regard to COVID-19, but with all of their foundational claims concerning "viruses". Further to the themes in this article, we will perform a deeper analysis of how virology has invalidated itself and cannot be considered a scientific pursuit. The essay will expose how foundational experiments involving everything from "cultures" through to "genome" creation and alleged clinical diagnostics have been performed without valid controls. We build on the case from our first essay that we can ignore such virological nonsense and the various anti-human "solutions" they are offering. The end of virology will be a gain for humanity. 

The post Lab Leaks and other Legends first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

Dr Sam Bailey
Mon, 23 May 2022 11:02:52 +0000

Monkeypox Mythology

"Monkeypox" – who could have seen it coming? Well, apparently the organisation founded by Ted Turner in 2001 called the 'Nuclear Threat Initiative' (NTI) saw it coming when they published a report in November 2021 called, "Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats." The report states that in March 2021, they partnered with the Munich Security Conference to run an exercise scenario involving a, "deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months…the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide."

The Nuclear Threat Initiative introduces Plandemic 2.0? This time it is even bigger and monkeypox takes centre stage.

Amazingly, the scenario had the monkeypox outbreak emerging as a result of an act of bioterrorism in May 2022, right where we are now. We have dealt with gain of function garbage involving non-existent viruses in several other videos, while Dr Stefan Lanka has also dismantled such fallacies. Regardless, the NTI's report suggests that what is required in a fantasy outbreak is, "aggressive measures to slow virus transmission by shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates." The winning countries in the NTI's hallucination implemented, "large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations and scaled-up their health care systems."

"But, I haven't got any viruses Peter."

Their charts, which seem to be produced by Neil Ferguson's calculator, show that countries that don't comply with their restrictions and medical interventions will be far worse off. The report goes on to state, "both the exercise scenario and the COVID-19 response demonstrate that early actions by national governments have significant, positive impacts in managing the impact of the disease." When they say "positive impacts" it is not quite clear who is on the receiving end, although they note that "the COVID vaccine market will exceed $150 billion in 2021." All in all the NTI's report reads like Event 201 on Ritalin. (Event 201 took place on 18 October, 2019. It was an exercise involving a, "coronavirus pandemic" just months before the COVID-19 "pandemic" was declared.)

Monkeypox attacks right on cue!

As with COVID-19 it appears that other parties have also been eagerly awaiting a market such a "pandemic" would present. Likewise, these fortune-tellers were preparing vaccines to go where no vaccine had gone before. In this case the biotech company Bavarian Nordic gained approval from the FDA in 2019 to market JYNNEOS, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine. Other health authorities were also primed to react to a previously rare condition that has been of no concern for their nations…until now apparently. For example, on May 20, 2022, the UK Health Security Agency published a document titled, "Recommendations for the use of pre and post exposure vaccination during a monkeypox incident." Like COVID-19, it's starting to feel like all roads lead to vaccines again…

Just a matter of time before the "rare" monkeypox vaccine comes to your neighbourhood.

So now that the scene has been set we can get into the "science" of monkeypox starting with an official description of the alleged viral disease. The CDC states that, "Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research, hence the name 'monkeypox.' The first human case of monkeypox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo." They go on to state that, "in humans, the symptoms of monkeypox are similar to but milder than the symptoms of smallpox." The illness is said to be flu-like with the addition of lymph node swelling and then development of a rash, and then lesions that progress from macules to vesicles to scabs.

In terms of the lethality of monkeypox, the CDC state that, "in Africa, monkeypox has been shown to cause death in as many as 1 in 10 persons who contract the disease." This 10% fatality rate has already stoked the fear narrative and was also used as the case fatality rate in the NTI's monkeypox pipe dream. It should be noted that historically monkeypox has been virtually unheard of in first world countries and the rare cases are usually in people that have recently arrived from Africa.  

Indeed, one of the only recorded "outbreaks" of monkeypox in the first world was in the United States in April 2003. Cases were declared in 6 states and said to be caused by rodents that were imported to Texas from Ghana. This was the first time monkeypox had been reported outside of Africa and the CDC published a paper in 2006 analysing the incident. The paper states that, "person-to-person spread of the virus is thought to occur principally via infectious oropharyngeal exudates" although it is clear that this has never been scientifically established. They continue to say that, "the virus is thought to have been transmitted from African animals" – in other words, it's another species-jumping pathogen tale.    

Blaming it on minority groups, when have we seen that before?

They reported that, "individuals who had illness onset within 21 days after exposure to MPXV [Monkeypox virus] who experienced fever (defined as a body temperature greater 37.4°C) and vesicular pustular rash or rash (potentially uncharacterized) plus orthopox IgM antibodies were classified as having probable cases of infection." Now 37.4°C is not a fever in our book, it is a normal body temperature and we would suggest 37.6°C and above qualifies as a fever. We noted in their chart that they were using the classification ≥39.4°C, but this appears to be an error as in another paper, we'll get to soon, it was once again 37.4°C. The second paper even said the "fever" could be subjective, so they appear to be using this loose criteria and pathologising a normal state. Additionally, the CDC's weekly report from the 11th of July 2003, stated that from a total of 71 cases, only "two patients, both children, had serious clinical illness; both of these patients have recovered." The remainder had a variety of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms.

The CDC's cases were confirmed on the basis of specimens that showed, "monkeypox virus isolation, detection of monkeypox-specific nucleic acid signatures, positive electron-microscopy findings, or positive immunohistochemical findings."  We had a look at the electron micrographs presented by the CDC including the image shown below of a skin sample from one of the patients. The caption informs us that the round particles on the right are immature monkeypox virions, while the oval particles on the left are mature viruses. However, all they have is a static image of dead tissue and no conclusions can be made about the biological role of the imaged particles. None of them have been shown to be replication-competent disease-causing intracellular parasites and so should not be called 'viruses'.   

The oldest trick in the book: Image some vesicles and call them "viruses". To see why this is insufficient watch Electron Microscopy and Unidentified "Viral" Objects.

Looking at the CDC's weekly report from 2003 again, it appears that the 35 "laboratory-confirmed cases" all involved polymerase chain reaction (PCR) "tests", so we investigated the scientific evidence behind this claim. One of the citations for the development of PCR detection of monkeypox is a 2004 paper titled "Real-Time PCR System for Detection of Orthopoxviruses and Simultaneous Identification of Smallpox Virus." Now a PCR protocol requires them to know the genetic sequences of the alleged monkeypox virus, which takes us to this 2001 paper titled, "Human monkeypox and smallpox viruses: genomic comparison". The paper claimed to have "isolated" the monkeypox virus in a rhesus monkey kidney cell culture from a scab of a monkeypox patient. Here the virologists are up to their old tricks again by asserting that: (a) the patient's scab contains the monkeypox virus, and (b) it is now in their culture brew. They claimed to have sequenced the "viral genome" by referring to a process described for sequencing an alleged variola virus in 1993.  

But when we look at this paper there is no virus demonstrated either, simply an assertion that it was "isolated" from, "the material from a patient from India" in 1967. They go on to make the claim that, "the virions were purified by differential centrifugation and viral DNA was isolated" – however, there is no demonstration of what they purified or how they were determined to be virions. In none of these experiments did they perform any controls by seeing what sequences can be detected from other human-derived scabs or similar specimens from unwell individuals. This is where we need to remind the virologists of what a virus is supposed to be – that is, a replication-competent intracellular parasite that infects and causes disease in a host. It is not detecting genetic sequences contained within scabs and claiming that they belong to a virus.  

So returning to the CDC's paper describing the 2003 "outbreak", it is unclear how they established they could be diagnosing anyone with monkeypox by using the PCR. Their PCR can only have been calibrated to sequences of unproven provenance. Additionally, it doesn't matter what kind of analytical specificity their PCR protocol had, there was no established diagnostic specificity – in other words it was not a clinically-validated test, an issue that goes beyond whether the "virus" exists or not. (From the MIQE GuidelinesAnalytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other, nonspecific targets also present in a sample. Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition whom the assay identifies as negative for that condition.) 

The 47 US cases they ended up describing were all in some sort of contact with imported African prairie dogs and the CDC's paper concludes that, "individuals contracted MPXV infections from infected prairie dogs; no human-to-human transmission was documented, but there were many different potential scenarios of infection involving respiratory and/or muco-cutaneous exposures, percutaneous and/or inoculation exposures." Now there were some problems with the study design which they admitted to including that, "the analyses were limited by incomplete reporting or recall of information by patients. And, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we were unable to obtain highly detailed data." 

However, even allowing some wriggle room for them here, the inconsistencies go further still. Firstly, no one in the US incident died from the disease which is said to have a 10% fatality rate in Africa. No doubt, the inconsistent lethality rates will be attributed to different "variants", but there can't be variants of something that doesn't exist.

There were few images available of the skin lesions that were reported in the 2003 incident but two of the US cases are depicted below and an image from a monkeypox case in Africa is shown for comparison. The reader can make up their own mind but those skin reactions do not look remotely comparable to us.

African child with monkeypox
US child with monkeypox
US man with monkeypox

Next, the CDC claim that, "the natural reservoir of monkeypox remains unknown. However, African rodents and non-human primates (like monkeys) may harbor the virus and infect people" – in other words it's all rather vague and remains an unproven hypothesis. Now, obviously some people became unwell in the US in 2003 but with the viral theory we are supposed to believe that it jumped from some prairie dogs to some humans and the latter became infected with the alleged virus…but then no human could pass it on to another human. The theory falls flat – a virus needs to spread, if it can't spread, it's dead and thus it's not a virus. And the historical patterns of alleged monkeypox virus outbreaks make no sense – why did it pass to these people so easily and yet it can go a decade between alleged "outbreaks"?

Unfortunately, the 2003 incident was investigated as though the viral contagion theory had already been established and other explanations were ignored. If people were allegedly getting sick from these African rodents, wouldn't it be a good idea to check the animals for other toxicities, particularly in their faeces and also for any ticks or parasites? We did note another reference state that with regards to the US cases, "many of the people had initial and satellite lesions on palms, soles, and extremities." However, according to the CDC, monkeypox usually starts on the face so the clinical picture in the US cases was not consistent with cases that are typically described in Africa.

In any case, a review of the scientific evidence revealed that with regards to monkeypox: (a) there is no evidence of a physical particle that meets the definition of a virus, (b) there is no evidence of anything transmitting between humans, and (c) there is no way to confirm a diagnosis of monkeypox unless you believe in clinically-unvalidated tests such as the PCR kits that have been produced. In other words, if we see a monkeypox "pandemic" that is used as an excuse to role out more globalist terrorism, it will be on the back of another PCR pandemic, not one that has any basis in nature. 

For those of you wanting to explore more problems with the various monkeypox claims, Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy has written a couple of interesting commentaries. The first article is, "Was Smallpox Really Eradicated?", which among other things deals with the convenient emergence of monkeypox while smallpox was apparently being eradicated. The second article is, "Did William Heberden Distinguish Chickenpox From Smallpox in 1767?" This outlines the fact that the pox conditions are not as readily distinguishable from each other as the text books suggest and appear to relate more to the severity of a similar disease process. You can also watch our video, "Chickenpox Parties and Varicella Zoster Virus?" to see why there is no evidence of a virus in that related condition either.  

From the perspective of terrain theory it is a fundamental mistake to attribute a person's illness to a supposed virus, as the subsequent "treatments" don't address the underlying issues. If someone is unwell, then they are usually deficient in nutrients and need to restore balance, or they have been exposed to environmental toxins and need to help the body detoxify. Wars against alleged pathogens that involve treating everyone the same way with civil rights restrictions and vaccines are certainly not about health. It is good to see more people waking up to the COVID-19 fraud so there is hope that a monkeypox scamdemic, if attempted, will bring even more light to the situation. As always, your best health is in your own hands, not in the hands of a globalist cult and their cronies.

If you have been outsourcing your health, there has never been a better time to free yourself from the virus fear narrative and begin manifesting your full potential instead.  

The post Monkeypox Mythology first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

Dr Sam Bailey
Fri, 06 May 2022 04:19:23 +0000

Why I Switched To Raw Milk For Good (Article)

I wanted to outline why myself and my family drink raw rather than pasteurised cow's milk. There are numerous benefits to drinking raw milk, although many people are afraid to do so, due to perceived dangers. However, are these dangers real or is it just Germ Theory run amok?

Cow's milk is one of the most commonly consumed products in the world but like all large industries, there has been market capture and the associated narratives that go along with it. When I was in high school science classes and then medical school, it was suggested that drinking raw milk was a risky business due to all the potential microbial "pathogens" that could make you sick. It seems that even when the beneficial effects of raw milk are acknowledged in the mainstream literature, consumption is quickly discouraged due to the "pathogen" argument.

Recent evidence indeed shows an inverse relation between raw cow's milk consumption and the development of asthma and allergies. However, the consumption of raw milk is not recommended due to the possible contamination with pathogens.  

Abbring, Suzanne; Hols, Gert; Garssen, Johan; van Esch, Betty C.A.M. (2018). Raw cow's milk consumption and allergic diseases – the potential role of bioactive whey proteins. European Journal of Pharmacology.

Not many people are aware of the steps involved in the processing of milk for consumption in most developed countries. Apparently, this is to make it "safe" through a process of dramatically adulterating what nature has provided. Take a look at the process:

Upon collection, which might involve machine milking, milk is cooled and stored at 4 °C. After transport to the dairy plant, the milk is centrifuged in order to remove the milk fat, leaving skim milk. The milk fat and skim milk will be recombined in the desired ratios to obtain: skimmed milk (≤ 1% fat), semiskimmed milk (2% fat) or whole-milk (> 3.25% fat). After this standardisation process, the milk is heat treated…The most commonly used heat treatments are pasteurisation (71-74°C for 15- 40s), sterilisation (110-120°C for 10-20min) and ultra-high temperature (UHT) processing (135-145°C for 0.5-4s)…Heat treatment is often followed by homogenisation, although homogenisation may also take place prior to heat treatment. During homogenisation the milk is pumped under high pressure through narrow pipes. This reduces the size of the fat globules and thereby it prevents the separation of a cream layer. Homogenisation increases the stability of the milk resulting in an increased shelf-life. After heating and homogenisation, the milk is rapidly cooled to 4°C and is subsequently packaged and stored for commercial purposes. 

Abbring, Suzanne; Hols, Gert; Garssen, Johan; van Esch, Betty C.A.M. (2018). Raw cow's milk consumption and allergic diseases – the potential role of bioactive whey proteins. European Journal of Pharmacology.

These processes completely change the microbial composition (including destroying lactase-producing bacteria), while denaturing proteins and enzymes, and can reduce the bioavailability of vitamins and calcium in the milk. Given the complexity of life, it is likely that one of nature's products is also been ruined in other ways that we have not yet appreciated, including the very way the fluid is physically structured.

One of the other reasons I started investigating milk was that disinformation sites such as Wikipedia portray raw milk as coming with no proven benefits and only considerable risks. However, the "evidence" they cite is in the form of assertions from the United States Food & Drug Administration or the CDC's webpages. These agencies do not provide scientific evidence that untreated milk in itself is dangerous. One of Wikipedia's main citations with regards to the so-called dangers is a 2010 Scientific American article claiming that, "bacterial outbreaks are traced back to nonpasteurised milk." The article points to an incident where 30 people became unwell, allegedly due to the presence of bacteria alone in raw goat's milk. However, it is based on assumptions about the bacteria being "pathogens" rather than evidence showing this to be the case and ruling out other causes of toxicity.

What we were taught in science lessons certainly seems to inaccurately portray the role of bacteria such as Listeria in causing disease. However, I did see Consumer, a more mainstream outlet in New Zealand ease up on the dogma in one of their 2016 reviews:

In 2015, 13 people [in New Zealand] got sick in outbreaks associated with raw milk. For most outbreaks raw milk is not the only risk factor – contact with farm animals and contact with untreated water are often mentioned. This means there's usually no definite proof raw milk caused the illness but it's difficult to confirm because in many cases the suspected batch of milk has already been consumed.

Consumer, (June 2016): Is raw milk natural goodness or food safety Russian roulette?

Thirteen is obviously a small number of people and there was no proof that it was actually raw milk that made them sick. Calves don't have any problems consuming unprocessed milk and the same can be said for breast-fed human infants who are certainly not drinking sterilised milk.

Top quality raw milk comes from healthy grass fed cows.
Pasteurized milk often comes from huge factory farms.

In any case, is there any evidence that specific microbes in milk can make people sick? Earlier this year, Daniel Roytas who produces the Humanley Podcast, performed a literature review seeking evidence that the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes is a potential "contaminant" in milk that can result in food poisoning. His research could not find evidence that the bacteria itself is harmful if ingested and he commented that:

I was quite surprised to learn that the way scientists were "infecting" animals with listeria was by injecting the bacteria directly in to their blood stream, abdominal cavities or brains, and not by feeding them the actual bacteria. Such experiments in no way resemble the purported natural route of infection.

Daniel Roytas, Feb 9, 2022.

Daniel, wrote a second article on this topic and approaching things from a "terrain theory" perspective allowed him to put forward alternative explanations to the "pathogen" argument and the inconsistent evidence used to support it:

Interestingly, Pasteurisation has been shown to degrade pesticides found in dairy milk. Could the reduced risk of illness from pasteurised dairy products be a result of toxin degradation, rather than from the destruction of bacteria? Is it possible that listeria present in milk might be there to break down pesticides or other toxic contaminants, or for some other reason all together? 

Daniel Roytas, Feb 20, 2022

There is no doubt that milk can become contaminated but it doesn't necessarily relate to the milk not being pasteurised or sterilised. A 2022 publication that reviewed the available scientific literature concluded that cow's milk was contaminated by "pathogenic microorganisms" in less than 15% of the reports. The majority of the cases related to chemical contamination.

Calahorrano-Moreno MB et al. Contaminants in the cow's milk we consume? Pasteurization and other technologies in the elimination of contaminants. F1000Research 2022, 11:91

Combined with the fact that the scientific studies struggle to show that ingestion of bacterial "pathogens" alone causes disease, it suggests to me that it is another case of germ theory nonsense. Naturally, careless animal husbandry or poor processing and storage practices of any type of milk can lead to a toxic product. And even if the microbes themselves are not harmful, toxic by-products may be produced as they decompose ageing or incorrectly stored milk.

Once again it is all about the "terrain" and encouraging others to see that the "pathogen" theory is deficient. In response to several medical associations advising against the consumption of raw milk or related products, The Raw Milk Institute issued a document which stated:

It is true that raw milk produced as "intended for pasteurisation" and sourced from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) is generally unsanitary and unsafe to consume raw…However, raw milk that is carefully and intentionally produced for direct human consumption is a low-risk food with superb nutritional benefits. This type of raw milk is wholly different from raw milk being produced in unhygienic conditions. 

The Raw Milk Institute (Dec 2019): Letter to Medical Professionals about Raw Milk

My advice would be to get your raw milk from a good source as close as possible to where you live. If you are lucky that would mean you have your own cow! The next best thing is to get to know the farm where your milk comes from. If you can, talk to the dairy farmer and find out what their philosophy is with regards to how they care for their livestock. In the Christchurch (NZ) area we are very fortunate to have Aylesbury Creamery as our local raw milk supplier. The cows are grass-fed, very well cared for and are milked only once a day. The milk comes straight from the cows and is delivered to our doorstep in recyclable glass bottles just a few hours later.  

No one in our family has ever had any problems from consuming this high-quality raw milk. Contrary to popular belief, my personal experience is that it keeps in the fridge for at least as long as pasteurised milk. I have consumed it throughout pregnancy and it was easily introduced into the diets of some of our children from the age of 6 months. Our older children even started requesting more milk after switching exclusively to raw milk. And if you are are keen home cook like myself, you will certainly appreciate its superiority in everything from smoothies to all kinds of home baking. I don't drink coffee but my husband Mark assures me it is a far better milk for a flat white as well. The easiest thing you can do is try some raw milk yourself (even those who have poorly tolerated pasteurised milk previously) – I've not seen many people go back to pasteurised milk after making the switch!

Sam's home baking with raw milk

The post Why I Switched To Raw Milk For Good (Article) first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

Dr Sam Bailey
Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:15:14 +0000

Rapid Antigen Tests – Making “Viruses” Real Again

Since February 2022, we have been told by the government that there has been an explosion of COVID-19 cases in New Zealand, as has occurred in most other countries following the purported discovery of the "highly infectious Omicron variant" in South Africa.  However, as I have previously explained, Omicron is as fictional as the original SARS-CoV-2 "virus", which was invented, not discovered, in Wuhan by taking over 50 million small genetic fragments of unknown provenance and instructing a machine de novo to organise a selection of these "short reads" into a new genome using two other invented genomes as the reference templates.

Sticking a swab up your nose and other pointless activities, courtesy of the NZ Ministry of Health

These days, such "viral genomes", which exist only in computers and cloud-based gene banks, are taken as proof by many intelligent people that pathogenic viruses exist in actuality and that the science is therefore settled.  After all, laboratories around the world continue to process samples that reference the invented genome called "SARS-CoV-2" and upload their computer models to databases such as GISAID by the millions.  In fact, at the time of writing there are 9,605,822 "SARS-CoV-2 genomes" on the leaderboard as it climbs to the moon.  However, not one of these in silico-assembled genomic sequences has ever been shown to exist in nature, let alone come from inside a disease-causing particle.

Over the past two years, many people, both sceptics of and believers in the COVID-19 narrative, have come to the conclusion that the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is not a reliable way to diagnose "infections", including, most recently, Dr Anthony Fauci.  For those aware of the deeper issues, it should be apparent that the PCR is not just unreliable in this application, but it is completely invalid.  Aside from all the other issues related to the interpretation of crude nasopharyngeal sample test results, if the genetic sequences the PCR is calibrated to have not been shown to belong to a pathogenic microbe, what is it supposed to be testing for?  Never mind that as has been pointed out previously, COVID-19 is a meaningless clinical entity, with no specific symptoms, signs, or confirmatory investigations, and thus all COVID-19 PCR test results are worthless.  



Unfortunately, despite the above, even COVID sceptics appear to have been seduced by Rapid Antigen Testing (RAT), also known as lateral flow testing.  In fact, some have suggested that a bout of illness that corresponds to a positive result from one of these tests, can be presented as evidence that the "virus" exists – Sam recently responded to one such claim.  We also dealt with the issue of these pointless tests in early 2021, when they were rolled out in many countries around the world.  Essentially, it is one indirect test piggybacked on another indirect test (the PCR), with the latter having no established diagnostic validity.  This doesn't stop RAT researchers from calling the PCR, the 'gold standard', and extending the nonsense of the casedemic a bit longer.  Put otherwise, because this phantom pandemic was built not on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of an illness but on the fraudulent misapplication of the PCR, a newer, cheaper and easy-to-use-at-home test for purportedly detecting the imaginary SARS-CoV-2 was introduced so as to perpetuate the fear of this phantom illness and to extend the life of its prescribed narrative.

Here in New Zealand, RAT is a relatively new phenomenon and it is currently all the rage for those participating in the COVID-19 circus.  On February 1, the government announced that,  "along with the 5.1 million tests already in the country, New Zealanders will have access to over 55 million rapid antigen tests in the coming two months."  Two weeks later, "cases" of the meaningless entity COVID-19 went parabolic.  In early March, RAT was said to be detecting 97 percent of these cases.  By that stage, Rapid Antigen Tests were being provided for "free" for all and sundry, with many feeling the need to test themselves or their children several times a day. 

I wonder what happened here?

Unlike the PCR, which amplifies selected genetic fragments, RAT purports to detect a protein, currently the "SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid" or 'N'-protein.  There are no published papers proving the existence and biochemical properties of a pathogen termed SARS-CoV-2, so the protein cannot be claimed to have any specificity to a "virus" – it is simply a protein class found in some humans and mammalian tissue culture experiments.  The typical test kit contains a membrane onto which a few drops of nasal-derived fluid are placed.  The fluid is drawn along the membrane and mixes with a fixed "anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody" (read: something that will react with the non-specific N-protein) conjugated with gold.  If this reaction occurs a visible bar is produced on the strip.  But what does this actually mean?

In October 2021, I contacted one of the government's approved RAT suppliers and put several questions to them, including the following:

With regards to the new test you are advertising where can I find the following information?:

1. Its analytical sensitivity and specificity. 

2. Its diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.

Email to NZ Government approved RAT supplier, Oct 2021.

In December 2021, they sent an email back to me with colourful promotional pamphlets produced by the Ministry of Health and an offer to buy a box of 25 test kits for NZ$260 + GST, but with no answers to my questions. 

When we sought information about the accuracy of Rapid Antigen Testing, we consulted a section titled, "RAT results and their accuracy" on the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) website, which claims that the tests "are quick and relatively simple to do but are not as accurate at telling whether you have COVID-19 as the PCR test you may have had before."  In other words: they are completely useless.  We found that below this section is another section titled, "PCR test results accuracy" which continues to conflate the analytical specificity of the PCR to detect pre-selected genetic fragments, with its diagnostic specificity for a condition ("COVID-19").  We pointed out this fundamental error to the MOH (and even lodged a complaint) a long time ago but they continue to refer to a website that contains only analytical performance data of the tests in a laboratory. 

The wonders of circular reasoning!

If you read a typical manufacturer's product information, you will see incredible performance claims, such as this one, reporting their kit as having a specificity of 99.8%.  But specificity for what exactly?  The methodology reveals that they have compared their RAT kit results to PCR results, "using an FDA EUA RT-PCR reference method."  As has been pointed out already, this has nothing to do with diagnosing a clinical condition: it is simply comparing one in vitro molecular reaction with another in the laboratory.  They didn't seem too worried that the PCR protocol they compared their test against was positive in 50 out of 483 asymptomatic subjects.  But these subjects with no illness whatsoever have COVID-19 according to the WHO, as a "confirmed case" simply requires a positive PCR result!  (And just as ridiculously for a confirmed case: "an asymptomatic person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-RDT who is a contact of a probable or confirmed case.")  In this new world of "pandemics", diseases no longer require people to be unwell apparently.

So, in this application, RAT is as pointless as using the PCR for diagnostics: they are both equally meaningless.  Unfortunately, RAT has become one of New Zealand's most common pursuits in recent weeks and hundreds of thousands of people now think they have the "virus".  There are certainly a lot of sick people I'm seeing, but in my assessment it has nothing to do with a novel pathogen.  Two years of draconian restrictions, face masks, government-concocted fear narratives, and being gulled into accepting toxic injections have taken their toll on the island nation.  Many are deconditioned, demoralised, and socially isolated.  In the latest chapter of COVID mass formation, the RAT frenzy has convinced many that, whatever symptoms they have (or don't have), the test kit informs them it is all due to a "virus", even though the chemical reaction they are witnessing on their little test strip does not require the existence of one.  It certainly keeps the COVID narrative alive but hopefully more will wake up soon and ignore the nonsense when they realise that it has all been part of The Viral Delusion.   

The post Rapid Antigen Tests – Making "Viruses" Real Again first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

stránka nevyužívá cookies, ne špionáž, ne sledování
abychom mohli používat web, zkontrolujeme:
země: CZ · město: Hluboka nad Vltavou · ip:
zařízení: computer · prohlížeč: CCBot 2 · platforma:
pult: 1 · online:
created and powered by: - profesionální responzivní webové stránky
 čekejte prosím načítání dat...