Dr Sam Bailey

On their "Courageous Discourse" Substack, Dr Peter McCullough & John Leake recently posted a short article titled, "Electron Cryotomography of SARS-CoV-2 Virions".  According to the authors:

"The endless frustrations of the SARS-CoV-2 crisis and pandemic response has led some to push back denying existence of the virus altogether."

They seem to have missed a few things, including the fact that those of us taking the 'no virus' position called fraud on COVID-19 prior to the likes of McCullough and co. calling fraud on the subsequent responses. Additionally, we are not denying the existence of the 'virus', we are calling fraud on all of virology and the entire virus hypothesis. There are no particles that have ever been shown to be replication-competent and pathogenic to fulfil this imaginary concept. On a wider scale, microbial contagion has also been shown to be fallacious.

McCullough claimed in the Substack post that an electron cryotomography study provided evidence of 'SARS-CoV-2'. He disingenuously implied to his readers that this kind of "evidence" has never been dismantled before. The methods section of the cited paper reveals that the authors simply asserted they started with "viral strains" in some obtained specimens. Then, these were mixed with Vero monkey kidney cells and after the cells broke down 4-5 days later, they were prepared for imaging. Various particles were imaged amongst the cellular debris and these were declared to be "virions." (There was no control experiment of course.) Oh dear! They have fallen for one of virology's oldest tricks: what we call the "point and declare" scam. None of these imaged particles have ever been shown to be replication-competent or disease-causing in nature. And none of them have been characterised to see what, if any, genetic material they contain.  

If Peter McCullough wants to get serious about virology then perhaps he could provide a response to Mark's 28,000 word formal refutation of the virus hypothesis in 'A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)' or the even more extensive refutation of 'HIV' in The Perth Group's 'HIV – a virus like no other'.

As a starting point, I would suggest that Dr McCullough watches my video, "Electron Microscopy and Unidentified 'Viral' Objects" which explains how the role of imaging has been systematically abused by the virologists. The virus model is not something that those interested in true health would have any interest in promoting.

Dr. Kevin Corbett, Christine Massey and Dr. Mark Bailey

The British nursing academic, Dr Roger Watson, recently cited a Canadian study by Banerjee et al as an example of adequate controls being used in "viral isolation". Watson's article appeared in Toby Young's The Daily Sceptic which purports to exist for airing views others refuse to publish. 

The cited study actually failed to prove any viral phenomenon because it did not use purified particles as independent variables. Only impure (crude) clinical samples from a patient were added to monkey kidney (Vero E6) cells without any suitable control. Subsequent phenomena were observed which were then claimed to be the actions of a 'virus' hence presumptively termed 'cytopathic effect'. Similarly, the RNA used for sequencing the so-called 'viral genome' was extracted – not from any purified particles proven to be of viral origin – but from the contaminated supernatant of the Vero E6 cells used in Banerjee et al. The resulting 'sequenced genome' was no such thing. It was an in silico modelled confection created from the same contaminated supernatant. These unscientific claims inform the current 'consensus' on how to do 'viral isolation and sequencing', despite having been rebutted by The Perth Group of scientists decades ago. 

All of these deviations from scientific method were pointed out to Dr Watson in e-mail messages by one of us (CM). Dr Watson was also asked to explain his stance in relation to this evidence which is anomalous viz a viz the scientific method and the paradigm of virology. Watson's initial response sidestepped the question. On further probing, Watson politely indicated that he had not considered these particular anomalies and thus would need to give further thought to the lack of valid controls used by Banerjee et al. Watson further stated that this whole debate "was cue to an article on why those who believe in viruses will not be convinced by the evidence". We fully agree. 

These particular e-mail messages are one example of a messenger exposing the multiple anomalies of modern virology to those who are conceptually invested in that paradigm. Instead of being able to look at what has been presented with a fully detached eye, the usual recourse is to bolster that failing anomaly-stricken paradigm by trying to dismiss the message, either by side stepping the questions posed, or by attacking the messenger ad hominem.  

Dr Watson attempted the former but (on this occasion) resisted doing the latter. 

We respectfully argue that this response is still a strategy of deflection to cover up ignorance of the caveats in modern day 'viral isolation' which are axiomatic within virology. This sort of defensive manoeuvre was previously identified by both Thomas Kuhn (1962) and Stephen Cole (1983). Kuhn argued that scientists reject anomalous data which potentially break down the existing consensus as a means of trying to maintain certainty. These rejections, which (after Kuhn) were proved by Stephen Cole to occur within modern science, are essentially defensive actions similar to knee-jerk responses.  

In this case, highly convincing observational data was presented (by CM) casting grave doubt over the veracity of this accepted 'consensus' on viral isolation. Some scientists have even argued that these sorts of observations fatally damage the whole concept of 'viral disease'. This so-called 'consensus' on 'viral' isolation is a necessary condition for both maintaining and advancing the current paradigm of virology and its claims of 'viral isolation'. Following Kuhn and Cole, those like Watson who seem very heavily invested in this paradigm will inevitably provide a knee-jerk response to reject any anomalous observations. We argue that this e-mail exchange is a modest example of premature closure of debate on the observed anomalies about modern virology's claims of 'viral isolation'. 

Dr Mark Bailey

Recently I spoke to an international consortium of doctors and researchers about the COVID-19 situation and the issue of virus existence. I was asked whether I thought COVID-19 cases were fictional in nature, which is an interesting question. It goes beyond the matter of whether pathogenic viruses exist and are the cause of disease. It also allows us to address the frequent claim people make that whatever COVID-19 is supposed to be, they "got it," based on their experience or one of the so-called tests they took. Let's examine why there is no "it" even though there are lots of "cases"…    

When most people hear the word "case" in a medical context there is a natural tendency to think that the individual being counted has an actual disease. It may come as a surprise that this is not a requirement at all because in the field of epidemiology it can be defined as simply, "the standard criteria for categorizing an individual as a case." 'Standard criteria' can be anything and this opens the door to all sorts of misuse and misinterpretation. In fact, it has been used to propagate outright fraud, as Dr John Bevan-Smith and I documented last year in "The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity."

In 2020, Sam published a video "What is a COVID-19 case?," which succinctly outlined the problems of the World Health Organisation's COVID-19 'case' definition. It was evident that cases are "confirmed" by in vitro (outside the body) molecular detection assays – in 2020 that was mostly PCR kits and today we also have the widely-deployed Rapid Antigen Tests, which I have discussed in another article. Whatever tests are being used, they have been completely disconnected from the concept of disease. By mid-2020, it was more than apparent that COVID-19 was not a clinically defined condition. A Cochrane review published in July that year concluded that, "based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease." In other words, COVID-19 cases can be solely determined by molecular "tests" such as the above-mentioned ones.

It is astounding that the vast majority of the medical community went along with this nonsense, including many of those who have been opposed to the "pandemic" responses. What does it mean to diagnose or treat a "case" of COVID-19? Even some PCR critics have been gaslit by debates about the "accuracy" of the PCR and appropriate cycle threshold limits in determining 'cases'. However, this falls back into the same trap, being the belief that these particular tests are capable of telling them something useful about the condition of a person. They think the PCR just needs to be tweaked in a certain way so it can be used as a diagnostic tool. For clarity, I am not talking about clinically-validated molecular assays with known diagnostic specificity and sensitivity such as urine pregnancy tests. Sam has covered the pertinent differences in her video "COVID-19: Behind The PCR Curtain."

Beyond the medical community, the public have been deceived by linguistic legerdemain where the PCR or Rapid Antigen Test results are then called, "cases of the virus," or, "cases of infection," by public institutions and the corporate media. This is a game of deception because the WHO's own definition of a case has been completely misrepresented. If they were honest they would say, "cases of a detected chemical reaction in an assay." However, this would have failed in the marketing department and nobody would have bought into the pandemic narrative in 2020.

In summary, there are indeed "cases" of COVID-19 but the case definition has been disconnected from the concept of disease. There is no disease and there is nothing to "get," except for a label as a 'case'. The Johns Hopkins "COVID-19 Dashboard" displays these hundreds of millions of meaningless figures, which look impressive to the uninitiated viewer. However, knowledge of how these numbers have been produced brings an understanding that we have just witnessed a pseudo-pandemic, or what Virus Mania's Dr Claus Köhnlein christened a "PCR Pandemic" in 2020.

The COVID-19 fraud and the concept of "cases" is illustrative of a wider problem concerning medical training and practice within the allopathic paradigm. It is one that I am acutely aware of, having been in the conventional medical system for two decades until my exit in 2016. The paradigm is based on claimed disease entities, many of which are allegedly caused by one "pathogen" and are supposedly treated with one "magic bullet." Medicine was subverted in this way last century after the stifling implementation of the Rockefeller-backed Flexner Report (1910) and has never recovered. Dr Montague Leverson pointed out an example of this misguided thinking about disease around the same time:

"You here assume smallpox to be a thing, an entity. This blunder is committed by nearly all the followers of the self-styled "regular school", and it will probably be a new idea to you to be told that neither smallpox nor any other disease is an entity, but is a condition."

Dr. Montague Leverson, Bridgeport Evening Farmer, Connecticut USA, August 21, 1909

One of the worst things that can happen when visiting an allopathic doctor is being labelled with a disease entity. Medical practice has deteriorated into protocol-driven paradigms in which the practitioners blindly follow pathways and tick boxes. Hapless patients are given a tag and then subjected to prescribed "treatments" rather than being advised on how to help cure their body's real problems. One silver lining to the COVID fiasco is that it blatantly exposed the nature of the medical system to many people and they could see that it cannot help them with achieving true health.  

New Zealand's Dr Ulric Williams (1890-1971) was another who understood the follies of attempting to classify disease "cases" through not only investigations but also through criteria involving symptoms and signs. Rather, he identified these patterns as healing crises and the body's attempts to restore itself to health. On that note, we are pleased to announce that we will soon be publishing a book that will once again make Dr Williams' wisdom and curative methods available to the world.

We are frequently asked about what really makes people ill if it is not "viruses" or other disease entities. It is a matter of changing our way of thinking from the misleading model of getting or suffering from "it" to a new understanding of what our body is trying to do to get well again. As well as addressing this in our free content, we explore these concepts further in our monthly Q&A sessions. Access to this bonus content is available through Dr Sam's Community Membership. Please sign up for this membership if you would like to support our work and have even more of your questions answered. You can also sign up for Dr Sam's free newsletter so you don't miss out on any of the latest developments.  

Dr Mark Bailey

Dr Mark Bailey

The damaging effects of the COVID-19 injections are postulated to occur through several mechanisms. It is not my intention in the present commentary to provide an exhaustive list of the potential mechanisms but they can generally be split into three major themes. The first is that the expression of the mRNA-encoded spike protein causes a subsequent inflammatory response, including vasculitis and clotting. The second is that the lipid-nanoparticles (LNPs), used as the mRNA delivery vehicle, are themselves toxic and may coalesce into much larger particles inside the body. (The synthetic mRNA that resists degradation may itself also be pro inflammatory.) The third is that there are undeclared toxic constituents within the injections, with the prime suspect being graphene oxide (GO). 

In early 2022, Dr Robin Wakeling demonstrated the behaviour of Pfizer Comirnaty LNPs coalescing under the light microscope. With regard to GO in the vaccines, he has kept an open mind and has pointed out the factor of batch variability. Many of the highly-complex patterns seen forming under microscopic examination of the vaccines have suggested the presence of this compound. However, Wakeling's latest research has revealed that such two-dimensional (2D) complexes can also be formed under the right conditions with plain isotonic (0.9%) salt water. He has presented the findings in his paper, "COVID Vaccines: a Curious Discovery on the Graphene Oxide Question," published today.

Wakeling stated that he has been unable to find images of these 2D saline-derived structures in the scientific literature, although there exist elaborate descriptions of how water molecules may behave under "nano-scale confinement." As he reported, "it is curious that something as common as isotonic table salt/saline, something that a plethora of observers would presumably have examined microscopically for over a century has not given rise to published 2D images of the type that are now straightforward to produce."

Wakeling reported that the one proposed mechanism is that alterations in the ratio of sodium (Na) to chlorine (Cl), outside of the typical 1:1 NaCl arrangement may be associated with the observed 2D structures. Whatever the mechanism, the findings under the coverslip may provide some insights into how water behaves within our own cells and various interfaces in our bodies. Are we being given another window into how water is 'structured' in life processes? In this regard, Wakeling also mentioned the work of Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Robert Lanza, and Veda Austin and the remarkable observations of water being able to store "information" and synchronise with various environmental influences.

These latest findings do not rule out the presence of GO in the injections and it does not negate the findings of other citizen scientists who have demonstrated mass spectrometry results consistent with the presence of the compound. As Wakeling stated, "the presence of 2D crystalline structures per se are probably not signatures of graphene oxide but are signatures of something else, something more profound perhaps."

While there often seems to be a lack of positive news during the COVID-19 fraud, for many of us it has been a source of inspiration to keep exploring beyond institutionalised science. Wakeling's investigations of the COVID-19 injections were motivated by the harm he was witnessing in his community. Unexpectedly, he has made new observations and found a new way of thinking about the nature of water and its interactions with salt. Please read this unique paper by Dr Wakeling for his latest insights into this fascinating topic… 

COVID Vaccines – a curious discovery on the Graphene Oxide Question

Dr Mark Bailey

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.