food news


Dr Sam Bailey

Dr Sam Bailey
Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:06:23 +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

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.

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 Guidelines: Analytical 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. GET MORE CONTENT FOR FREE

Already A Member? Login here for more articles

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.

Dr Sam Bailey
Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:29:47 +0000

The COVID “Sceptics” Who Spread Viral Dogma

"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking something you don't actually know…One logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely."

– Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

On 11 March 2022, an article was published on The Daily Sceptic website titled, "The Real Truth About Viruses". It was written by Dr Roger Watson, a PhD-qualified registered nurse, who recently retired from the United Kingdom's higher education sector and now has a part-time position as Academic Dean of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. The article was a blatant hit piece against me, typically the domain of the controlled corporate media, so it was a surprise to see it on a website that developed from Lockdown Sceptics. They have the motto "question everything" but apparently you shouldn't question germ theory and the existence of viruses!

"Question Everything"….except germ theory and viral existence, that's pure crazy.

Dr Watson appeared to know very little about my work and never attempted to make contact with me before he did his hit and run. We offered him the chance to come on my channel but he declined saying, "I am not sure how fruitful a debate with me would be," perhaps not feeling confident about backing up his claims or perhaps a little shaken by the derision he received in the comments section on the Sceptics website. 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…

one bullet one dissident
Questioning viruses is a risky business

"I would like to hear Duesberg or Sam Bailey explain how haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood infusions. Somehow, I think they'll have a stock response to that one."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

It is unclear why Watson has conflated my views with Peter Duesberg and his sentence will take some unpacking. His reference to Peter is a link to Wikipedia, a known disinformation site, which should raise a red flag for a sceptic or anyone wanting to know more about a topic. Peter does not claim that viruses don't exist: he is one of the world's most prominent retrovirologists after all! His position is that the HIV particle exists but that it is a harmless "passenger" virus that does not cause the clinical condition AIDS. I know he outlined the evidence of why haemophiliacs do not become "infected" through blood product transfusions here but cannot otherwise speak for him. My position is that there is no proof of the existence of a retrovirus called HIV and that the particles nominated "HIV" have never been shown to fulfil the defintion of a virus. Thus "HIV" has not been shown to cause AIDS.

In this regard, the biggest influence on both myself and my Virus Mania co-authors has been the work of The Perth Group. Watson fails to define what he means by, "haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood" but presumably he means that the reason some haemophiliacs develop AIDS is because there is a pathogenic virus that is being transmitted to them via infected blood. (They actually receive factor VIII concentrate from pooled blood donations.) I am unaware of any research demonstrating HIV particles in blood or any human or animal models showing transmission of "infected" blood that then causes a recipient to develop AIDS. In Virus Mania we explain that "HIV" cannot be the explanation for the development of AIDS in haemophiliacs. Increased death rates did correspond to changes such as the introduction of "anti-viral" pharmaceuticals including the highly toxic AZT in "HIV positive" patients. If Watson wants to get serious about claiming that a virus is being transmitted to haemophiliacs and causing AIDS then he should have an attempt at refuting The Perth Group's 1995 paper, "Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship". In my estimation it is the best I have come across and I would welcome Watson's critique of what I've missed.

"Her views have been debunked regarding the existence of viruses but, possibly unknown to many who are unwilling to wade into the depths and breadths of her views, she denies germ theory completely."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson doesn't let his readers know how he established I've been "debunked" or by whom. Instead he provides a link to a small blog post written by a University of Waikato employee and Pfizer BioNTech injection enthusiast Alison Campbell. Campbell set up the blog, "as a resource for secondary school biology teachers preparing students for Scholarship Biology examinations" which is probably not the level Watson should be aiming for in this debate. If he checked Campbell's usual publications he would have realised that she has no experience in virology or medical matters. In fact, when we reached out to her she quickly retreated and would not even agree to a phone call. Watson follows in the footsteps of our state-sponsored mainstream media who also used this largely ad hominem rant as "evidence" against me. I've already responded to Campbell and the MSM's little foray into virology – unfortunately, like Watson, they are limited to repeating the claims of the virologists at face value.

I'm not sure why my views on germ theory would be "unknown" to my viewers as I openly point out that I do not believe it is satisfactory model. Virus Mania is largely dedicated to dismantling germ theory and my views are closest to that of "terrain theory". I outline why I'm in the terrain camp in much of my work, including in my video, "Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory". For those not familiar with Virus Mania, a window into the book can be found in this short essay I wrote with my co-authors.

"This essay is prompted by the most recent video from Sam Bailey: The Truth About Viruses published on March 9th 2022. She is to be congratulated for its brevity – it is only 17 minutes long – but it is presented in a typically sneering, sarcastic and patronising manner."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson seems to completely miss that this video is a light-hearted and satirical take on some of the historical claims of the virologists. It was designed to engage a wider audience with material that can be a boring subject for many. If he wanted to have a serious discussion about a particular topic then he could have easily accessed my other published work or contacted me to fill in any gaps.

"It is hard to understand how Sam Bailey arrives at her views and it is not necessary to be a virus denier to be highly critical of the way the pandemic was managed."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Spot the germ theorist!

Watson has ignored the vast majority of my work and never bothered to converse with me so perhaps it is not surprising that he is confused. I'm not sure why anyone would decide to be a "virus denier" because they needed to criticise "pandemic" management or how this is relevant to his argument. In fact, it's disingenuous to even suggest such a modus operandi and it slumps into the argument of the destitute.

"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. The HART Group led by Dr. John Lee, who have mounted the most credible and well-informed responses to the UK lockdown, is not stocked with virus deniers."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson has not provided any evidence for the existence of viruses here: his argument seems to be that other people believe in viruses, therefore viruses exist. Some people also believe in the tooth fairy but that would not affect my own investigations into the topic. Appeal to common opinion is a type of faulty reasoning that also plagues the medical community. Heretics like myself are prepared to examine the evidence for ourselves and reach our own conclusions, not parrot those of others. We are not motivated by the number of people who agree with us and our publications are not restricted by governments, institutions, or colleagues. Note to Dr Watson: in all the virology textbooks I've looked at, the method of proving the existence of a virus does not include 'beliefs held by Dr Mike Yeadon'. (For the record: I have no problem with Dr Yeadon, we just have different thoughts on the existence of viruses.)

"It is hard to know where to start but, since she denies germ theory itself – as properly understood – I will start here with Dr Bailey's views on whether anything exists that can cause an infection and spread between people. Louis Pasteur comes in for criticism by Bailey in her Delingpod interview. I am sure Pasteur was not perfect but he did knock the theory of spontaneous generation a body blow with his swan neck flask experiment."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

I'm unsure what Watson means by "properly understood" germ theory. My investigations into germ theory, which are dealt with in Virus Mania and videos such as "Koch's Postulates: Germ School Dropout", have informed me that the theory is fatally flawed. I have looked into Koch's original work and he did not fulfil his own postulates correctly. His often uncontrolled experiments failed to take into account the traumatic effects of his procedures on animals or consider other factors that were making them ill. With regards to "infection" spreading between people, it seems that clinical experiments have struggled to demonstrated this phenomenon. Perhaps the most spectacular failure has been the inability to ever demonstrate transmission of influenza, as I outlined in this video here and ViroLIEgy's Mike Stone detailed here. If Watson wants to send me a paper that proves the concept of microbes transmitting between humans to make them ill, then I would be happy to critique it. Pasteur's work has been exposed as largely fraudulent, but it is unclear why Watson is bringing in his spontaneous generation and swan neck flask experiments and how that relates to anything I've published. Perhaps he thought terrain theory was claiming that microbes appear on the basis of spontaneous generation?

"Dr. Bailey has batted the theory of disease back into the 19th Century. Edward Jenner was another scoundrel according to Bailey and, while his experiments would not have passed muster with an NHS ethics committee, you can see where Bailey is going and leading her disciples into the realm of the 'anti-vaxxers', a topic which I will not explore here."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson may be shocked to know that I'm not the only one who has questioned the alleged contributions Jenner has made to human health through the practice of vaccination. I would also suggest he reads the book Dissolving Illusions, or at least examine the charts that Dr Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk have put together, if he believes that the smallpox vaccine or any other vaccine has been shown to be of benefit to the public.

Measles vs Vaccine data
The realm of "anti-vaxxers" and their bloody inconvenient, irrefutable data!

I am up front about my position on vaccines as it is clearly stated on my website FAQs that, "I am not 'anti-vaccination' in the sense that I don't wish to tell other people what to do with their bodies. I'm always happy to consider new evidence, but for me personally, I don't believe any current vaccine can provide health benefits for myself or my loved ones." It is unclear to me why Watson thinks I am "leading disciples" into any realm. If he thinks he has sound evidence that vaccines lead to better health outcomes then he is welcome to provide it – our Virus Mania team has sought such data from major institutions such as the Robert Koch Institute for many years and they have been unable to provide it.

"She mentions, in passing, the famous TMV (tobacco mosaic virus) in a 'that's all very well' kind of way. But the fact is that the TMV has been sufficiently purified for its structure to be studied by scanning electron microscopy; and that represents a very high level of both isolation and purity. A plant virus it may be, with no animal equivalent, but it is the case that disproves, in a Popperian way, the argument often repeated by the virus deniers that 'no virus has ever been purified'. Some have been sufficiently purified for study by X-ray crystallography and that represents an extremely high level of purification."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

It's not at all convincing in his article that Watson knows the difference between isolation and purification. He refers to a microscopy study which purports to show TMV. We may need to remind Watson that a virus is a tiny replication-competent, intracellular parasite that can infect a host and pass onto other hosts. Apart from images of tiny particles, there is nowhere in the paper he cites that any of these key properties are demonstrated. I have explained in my video, "Electron Microscopy and Unidentified "Viral" Objects", the limitations of the technique and why particles that appear amongst dead tissue cannot be classified as "viruses" without further experimental steps. His reference to an x-ray crystallography paper is likewise useless. Plenty of particles can be purified Dr Watson – the issue is that they need to be shown to be viruses. In any case, you're in for a treat as I currently have a video in production exposing the Tobacco Mosaic "Virus" story going back to Ivanovsky's unscientific experiments considered by some to be the beginning of virology.

"But the fact is that the existence of any virus is triangulated by an array of increasingly sophisticated laboratory techniques whereby theories may be tested, cultures grown, and infectivity demonstrated. In fact, a great many viruses have been purified, often against the odds."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Triangulation? The process of measuring distances and determining locations. Watson goes next-level cunning with his conflations to make virology look respectable again! If Watson looked at all my publications he would see that I am familiar with the historical techniques, which failed to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses, and how they have morphed into modern molecular detection techniques to keep the virus paradigm alive. His citation is "Virus Purification" techniques in the Encyclopedia of Virology (Fourth Edition), 2021 – I have an e-copy of this publication and am familiar with the described methods. However, Watson needs to show his hand and let us know which particles he thinks have been purified and demonstrated to be "viruses" instead of pointing at a textbook.

Dr Watson: stop keeping us in suspense and please publish your list of viruses that were purified "against the odds" with their proofs.

"The virus deniers trot out the Koch's postulates argument repeatedly, even though Koch's postulates were simply one way – long before the advent of amino acid and nucleotide sequencing methods – of demonstrating the presence of a bacterium. Koch's postulates were never intended to be applied to viruses – the existence of which were not known when Koch postulated."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson appears completely confused about Koch's Postulates which relate to establishing a causative relationship between a microbe and a particular disease, and conflates it with "demonstrating the presence of a bacterium." The postulates were designed to be applied to all microbes, but as I have stated, my investigations indicate that Koch's Postulates have never been fulfilled and there is no sound basis to germ theory: bacteria, fungi and postulated "viruses" are not the causal agents of disease. And it doesn't matter what nucleotide sequences or proteins you discover Dr Watson, you still need to establish where they come from – are you sure the virologists establish this or even do "sequencing"? (See below).

"Germ Theory Denialism"? Wikipedia and Big Pharma cannot allow that to happen.

"The original SARS, which almost certainly jumped species, is very unusual for that very reason and, for example, bird flu does not infect humans. The jury remains out on whether SARS-CoV-2, which possibly jumped species, did so spontaneously or after a 'gain of function' nudge."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
Watch out, moo-moo's about!

Interestingly for a "sceptic", Watson espouses most of the virology industry's stories about viruses jumping species. Can he point to the investigations he performed to conclude something that hasn't been shown to exist "almost certainly jumped species"? We deal with these highly speculative and sometimes baseless claims in Virus Mania and I covered the original "SARS" (and "species jumping") in another of my videos banned by Big Tech but still available here. There is a fatal flaw regarding gain of function research with "viruses" when the pathogens themselves have not been shown to exist, as I have pointed out in more videos banned by Big Tech but still available here and here. Dr Stefan Lanka has also outlined the fallacies of "bio-weapons," including fabricated "viruses" and how they have been used to drive fear into the public for many decades.

"I have corresponded with Siouxsie Wiles, a major debunker of the Koch's postulates argument, at Auckland University in New Zealand over this point and over the point regarding 'purification' of the SARS-CoV-2 virus."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson makes an appeal to "authority" here, which was the same mistake made by Steve Kirsch when he clumsily waded into the issue of the existence of "SARS-CoV-2" in January 2022. My husband Dr Mark Bailey has previously outlined why Kirsch shouldn't rely on such "experts". Like Watson, Kirsch started off all guns blazing against the "virus deniers". Like Watson, Kirsch rapidly retreated when the Baileys, Dr Tom Cowan, Dr Andy Kaufman, and Dr Stefan Lanka all offered to participate in a live debate with his chosen "experts". It is odd that our "sceptic" Watson corresponds with Wiles as she is heavily promoted by the NZ government and advised our country that, "the world is on fire" and we should, "all behave as they [the government] are asking us to behave" in March 2020.

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas

She is notorious for avoiding open scientific discussions and even has a lengthy automated email reply excusing herself from such pursuits. Incidentally, in February 2022, a state-sponsored media platform was found guilty of publishing one of her false claims. Watson has referred to an article by Wiles which is a case of the blind leading the naked. In the article she provides no explanation as to how disease causation is satisfied with viruses when it is conveniently claimed there are no suitable clinical experiments available. She tries to distract the reader with Falkow's molecular postulates, and fails to inform her readers that River's postulates were designed specifically for viruses but have not even been close to being fulfilled for SARS-CoV-2 – the first problem being that no one can show it exists. There is certainly nowhere in her article that demonstrates she can prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus, only excuses as to why direct proofs are lacking. I have previously addressed her false claims surrounding the application of the PCR in another video banned by Big Tech after several hundred thousand views, but still available here. New Zealanders have endured two years of state-sponsored nonsense from Wiles, who is paraded by the MSM as a go-to "expert". I'm willing to bet that a live debate with Watson & Wiles on one side and the Baileys on the other would be very revealing.

"It transpires that the purification of the novel coronavirus argument is a straw dog created by the viral deniers. In fact, nobody has claimed that it has been purified. However, it has been 'isolated', which is a different concept whereby studies are carried out to check it is there."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

If Watson hasn't already indicated that he is bringing his pocketknife into a gunfight, then this is where his pocketknife falls to the floor. I suspect he didn't know that I have already analysed Vincent Racaniello's presentation he refers to in this video (banned by Big Tech of course). It is not clear that he even listened to Racaniello's words: if the virologists don't have a specific defintion of "isolation", what does Watson think it means? Can he see a problem when Racaniello says, "an isolate is a virus that we have isolated…" or has he been swept up in their circular reasoning? The problem of what "isolation" means is the pivotal issue with regards to proving the existence of viruses and the virologists have a habit of playing fast and loose with its meaning. As stated by The Perth Group in 2017: "The fact is that in virology, while purification retains its everyday meaning, 'isolation' is an expediential term virologists assign to data they claim are proof a particular virus exists." Watson instead chooses to cheerlead the virologists denigration of the English language: if their use of the word 'isolation' isn't what everyone thinks it is, then it's useless as a method of providing proof that a particle is a virus.

Watson, however, gives the thumbs up to 'isolate = particles + every other bit of junk in a specimen', perhaps oblivious to the deception of the virologists.

"According to Siouxsie Wiles, the virus has been found in hundreds of disparate samples and subsequently sequenced. The viral deniers point to the way the sequence was merely pieced together in the early stages, thus proposing a hoax. But this is how viruses are sequenced."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic
It's all perfectly natural folks!

How on earth this made it past the Daily Sceptic editors is a mystery to me. For his source of "truth", Watson has cited "fact-checking" organisations that are supported by Big Tech, and have financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. If it is not apparent at this stage of the "pandemic" that these organisations have been consistently misleading the public since day one then it is difficult to believe that he really is a "sceptic". The fraudulent invention of the "SARS-CoV-2 genome" by Fan Wu's lab has been exposed by Stefan Lanka's team and it was even worse than the usual imaginary "viral genome" assembly circus. The ViroLIEgy website has one of the best collections on the many assumptions and biases involved in "genome" creation, from the collection of the crude specimen through to the hypothetical model constructed by computer software. And with regards to "viruses", we do not call it a "hoax", we call it fraud. "Viruses" are not really "sequenced" as you might think Dr Watson (see below).

"In any case, as explained to me by Siouxsie Wiles, it is not necessary to purify the coronavirus and as Dr. Ros Jones says in her Unity News Network interview with David Clews, this is not how it is done; the virus is cultured. This is about as close to Koch's postulates as you could get: grow the purported virus in a cellular culture and identify it by sequencing. Introduce what you have to some other cultured cells alongside a control culture. If the one with the purported virus shows subsequent evidence for the presence of the virus and the other does not, that is about as watertight an experiment as I can think of."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson has a great deal of faith in Wiles and her reassurances that purification is, "not necessary" and again seems to be confused about what Koch's Postulates is all about. He describes cell culture experiments and what he believes is "identification" of a virus. How does he know there would be a new virus in there? Apparently, by "sequencing" (I'm not sure he understands what they are actually doing – see next point.) And what does he mean by a "control culture"? Official Information Act requests have exposed that the virologists do not do valid control experiments and this has been a problem ever since Enders and Peebles started the "virus" culture technique in the 1950s. Lack of valid controls = unscientific. I can only suggest to Watson that he digs a little deeper and examines the methodology of the papers rather than simply browse their headlines.

"Bailey and co. try to debunk all the methods that are used in virology and to deny the whole field of laboratory science. The only possible retort can be that no method is perfect, and experiments often fail to show what is being hypothesised. That is an argument for rather than against science, which constantly tries to improve its methods. I recall a whole room being dedicated to a huge amino acid sequencer when I was a PhD student. Now, amino acid sequencing can be done on a microchip."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

This is so full of non sequiturs that perhaps the best advice to Watson is that he needs an editor to help him communicate what he is trying to say to his readers. He should be able to clearly see my pro-science position in the video, "Science vs Dogma". My publications analysing virology have clearly pointed out that much of it involves uncontrolled experiments and thus cannot be claimed to be scientific. He refers to Karl Popper earlier in his article but fails to see that Popper would be horrified by the reasoning used by many virologists. How is an in silico "viral genome" that is created de novo from an unpurified specimen, that has been templated to another "viral genome" which was invented in the same way, falsifiable? How is a PCR result that "diagnoses" a disease on the basis that a positive result means you have the disease, falsifiable? I also suspect he is confusing complete in silico assembly of hypothetical "viral genomes" with actual physical sequencing, such as via the Sanger method, which he may have seen when he was a student. Computer games are indeed very seductive, particularly for kids but sometimes for adults too.

Sometimes it's not science Dr. Watson, it's dogma (and homicide to boot).

"I have had Covid, despite the remarkable claims by my virus denying friends to the contrary. How do I know I had it: it hit me like an express train; I felt terrible for two days and slept for 29 of 48 hours, rather like the flu. My taste was not lost but my sense of smell became incredibly deranged, not something that I had experienced after many bouts of flu in my 66 years."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson appears to include this story about his bout of illness as evidence that viruses must exist. Despite it being another non sequitur, what is his definition of "COVID"? Virus Mania co-author Dr Claus Köhnlein pointed out in 2020 that it was nothing more than an imaginary clinical condition based on a new PCR "test" with no demonstrated clinical diagnostic capability. His interview in German reached over 1 million viewers before it was quickly shut down and his interview in English with me on Youtube had 125,000 views when it was shut down. It is still available here. I produced another popular video in 2020, "What Is A Covid-19 Case?" which outlines why "COVID" is a meaningless construct – which was also banned by Big Tech. In Dr Watson's view how do we define a case: does a person dying in intensive care and an elite athlete running a marathon both have "COVID-19"? According to the WHO they should both be counted as equal "confirmed" cases if a PCR result is positive.

"When I felt worst, I reluctantly took a lateral flow test (LFT). This showed up positive almost instantly and with a thick test line. As I felt better the test – which as it uses antibodies is highly specific but not very sensitive – took longer to show and the line became fainter. Of course, the virus deniers have this one covered under the rubric that immunology is also bogus, antibodies are not at all specific and will pick up anything. My 'gotcha' to this is: if I run a pregnancy test which uses antibodies to detect human chorionic gonadotropin, will it show me I am pregnant?"

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

It is unclear if Watson is claiming that his lateral flow test proves the existence of viruses or "COVID" or both. What does he think the test is for? Something unique to the postulated "CoV" particle or a specific bodily process? Oh dear, we are back at square one! I have dealt with "COVID" LFTs previously and they are as equally unsuitable as the PCR with regards to clinical diagnostics and proving virus existence. With the rest of his claims, I'm not aware of who said antibodies pick up "anything" and it certainly wasn't me. The issue surrounds assigning meaning to various proteins that can be detected through in vitro chemical reactions compared to what this informs us about health in real life. This topic has been outlined in Virus Mania and I also cover it in some of my other videos. His "gotcha" with regards to human chorionic gonadotropin has nothing to do with postulated viruses and related "immunology". β-hCG is a specific glycoprotein of known composition and provenance that has been clinically validated for diagnosing pregnancy and can be easily compared to a "gold standard": a foetal ultrasound scan (or the actual baby). As per many of Watson's attempts, it's another own goal. I can also suggest to him that if he has a positive result on a pregnancy test, as a man he's unlikely to be pregnant and should be checked for cancer.

"The virus deniers who tend to promote their views on increasingly bizarre websites and within such a deafening echo chamber that they are completely unable to hear, yet alone contemplate, alternative views. They certainly don't listen."

Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

What are these "bizarre" websites that he is referring to and what's wrong with bizarre anyway? The orthodoxy doesn't like being challenged Dr Watson. If they played like real scientists they'd welcome views that challenge their comfy status quo and we could all go on the same URLs. It may disturb Watson but the appetite for the content we produce seems very healthy. Our audience size is mostly restricted by Big Tech censorship and I'm sure he doesn't agree with such interference with free speech. However, despite my Youtube channel being heavily suppressed, with millions of views being removed and people informing me that my videos and articles can't be shared on platforms such as Facebook, the audience still grows every week. Mike Stone recently put together a list of websites that challenge the virus paradigm – I am in regular contact with many of these doctors, scientists and journalists and none have indicated that lack of demand is a problem. Last year, Mark and Dr John Bevan-Smith published their essay "The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity". Not only do they explain that there is no pathogen termed "SARS-CoV-2" but also why everyone should be sceptical about everything the virologists have ever claimed. They were tracking the viewership across various internet platforms for a few months before they gave up. By that stage it had reached about 250,000 people – I would say that's a few hundred times more than most virologists are reaching with their papers. Watson's "deafening echo chamber" may turn out to be his own case of tinnitus…


Perhaps Dr Watson's annoyance stems from the fact that because people get sick and die, he thinks it is unsporting to question the methods of the hard-working virologists? They are the white knights, so if we go against them – it means we must be on the wrong side. I don't have all the answers as to why people get sick but the extensive research I've done informs me that pathogenic "viruses" do not seem to exist and are not the cause of disease. The tree of virology has borne no fruit for humanity unless that fruit is a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry that targets enemies that have not been shown to exist. In the last two years, virology and germ theory have brought the planet to its knees, manifesting in anti-humanity measures such as face masks, stripping of civil rights, and mandated "vaccines". For some of us, germ theory refuted itself at its inception and we see it for what it is: a tragic misunderstanding of nature, now used as propaganda in a perpetual phoney war, like something out of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Dr Watson can call us whatever names he likes – we see the universe in a different light and it is a light we choose to walk in. Perhaps he'll take a stroll with us some day?

"There are three steps in the revelation of any truth: in the first, it is ridiculed; in the second, it is resisted; in the third, it is considered self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer

The post The COVID "Sceptics" Who Spread Viral Dogma first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

Dr Sam Bailey
Sun, 27 Feb 2022 00:59:12 +0000

Are the Pfizer-injected now GMOs?

A study has just been published in Current Issues in Molecular Biology which may cause a few problems for the "fact-checkers" and government agencies who have emphatically claimed that the mRNA injections cannot alter or damage the recipient's DNA.

The paper by Aldén, et al, titled "Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line," published on 25 February 2022, reveals what some of us have been warning about since the experimental mRNA injections were released onto largely unsuspecting populations. That is, the mechanisms do indeed exist for the genetic injections to change and/or damage the recipient's genome.

In New Zealand, Medsafe approved the Pfizer injections for wholesale use in the country despite minimal safety data being available.  In 2021 they engaged their "experts", Professor Peter McIntyre from the University of Otago and Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor for the Ministry of Health to address any "concern that permanent alteration of DNA may occur."  Bizarrely, they went way out on a limb in a few sentences in the following letter to NZDSOS:

"Messenger RNA is unstable, which is why it must be stored at very low temperatures prior to use. As mRNA does not enter the nucleus and is rapidly broken down by the cell after protein transcription has occurred, it is unable to alter DNA (Ref 10) . This is shown in the graphic below (Ref 11)."

Report for Medsafe: Professor P McIntyre & Dr Ian Town, 14 June 2021
Nature is not directed by colourful man-made cartoons.

NZDSOS were concerned that this was an over-simplification of the state of the science and thus presented a paper to Medsafe the following week, specifically addressing the potential problems:

"The science on this is still unfolding and we are concerned that the authors claim a definitive statement on this topic. The first reference the authors provide is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website which is aimed at providing the public with a simple overview of the mRNA injection. The second reference (and diagram) only shows the 'proposed sequence of events leading to the generation of adaptive immune responses upon mRNA vaccination'. From this the authors appear to conclude that it would be impossible for the injected mRNA to become integrated into our DNA because mRNA does not work that way."

NZDSOS to Medsafe, 21 June 2021

The mechanism for the conversion of RNA to DNA is possible through reverse transcriptase enzymes.  Although some virologists have suggested that reverse transcriptase is specific to "retroviruses", it has long been known that the enzymes can be found in normal mammalian cells.  This has been well documented by The Perth Group and has gained more mainstream attention in recent years including in this SciTechDaily article in 2021:

"Thomas Jefferson University researchers provide the first evidence that RNA segments can be written back into DNA, which potentially challenges the central dogma in biology and could have wide implications affecting many fields of biology. 'This work opens the door to many other studies that will help us understand the significance of having a mechanism for converting RNA messages into DNA in our own cells,' says Richard Pomerantz, PhD, associate professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Thomas Jefferson University."

New Discovery Shows Human Cells Can Write RNA Sequences Into DNA – Challenges Central Principle in Biology. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY JUNE 12, 2021

I'm not sure why they think the central dogma of biology is only now being "potentially challenged" as it was never proven to be relevant from the day that Francis Crick first suggested it in 1958, but at least they are opening their eyes.

In any case, what did Aldén et al's recent paper demonstrate? I'll outline some of the highlights:

"Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure."

"BNT162b2 DNA amplicons were detected in all three time points (6, 24, and 48 h). Sanger sequencing confirmed that the DNA amplicons were identical to the BNT162b2 sequence flanked by the primers."

"In the BNT162b2 toxicity report, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided [26]. Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects."

Alden, M. et al. (2022.) Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44(3), 1115-1126.
NZ Ministry of Health's Infomercial for Pfizer: so many things wrong here, where should we start?

Now, to be clear this does not mean that those who have been injected with the Pfizer BioNTech product have had their DNA modified – but it raises very significant concerns. The study was carried out in vitro (in a test tube) with Huh-7 cells which are of human origin but derived from an abnormal (liver cancer) cell line.

Therefore, the next logical step would be to assess whether those that have been injected with the product have evidence that the sequence has been integrated into their DNA.

The authors didn't proceed to test this themselves although suggested that genomic sequencing and integrity should be checked in, "human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination."  Who will (be allowed to) take up the challenge?

This paper comes hot on the heels of another major revelation related to these mRNA injections. Dr Mikolaj Raszek has recently highlighted a potential problem that is apparent in the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration's (TGA) own "Nonclinical Evaluation Report" on Pfizer's Comirnaty (BNT162b2). Dr Raszek has previously discussed how the spike protein can circulate in the blood of the injected for months, which considering the recent Aldén et al paper, may be explained by the integration of the genetic sequence into the host's DNA. In effect, the jabbed may produce the spike protein indefinitely or at least have the potential to do so. His latest revelation from the TGA's report adds more weight to his theory that the spike proteins themselves are entering the nucleus of the cell and once it is inside it "could be a mutagen because it prevents the fixing of our DNA."

All in all it makes the Australian TGA look like a complicit partner in this COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity as they gamble on their citizens lives under the influence of Pfizer:

"Neither the mRNA nor the lipid excipients of the LNP formulation are expected to have genotoxic potential. However, the potential of the LNP or the vaccine formulation for complement activation or stimulation of cytokine release was not adequately assessed in nonclinical studies. Further investigation (i.e., analysis of complement activation and cytokine stimulation) is recommended unless this particular concern is addressed by clinical data. The absence of a repeat dose toxicity study in a second species and genotoxicity studies with the novel excipients was adequately justified by the Sponsor…Short term protection studies, lack of pharmacokinetic data for the S antigen-encoding mRNA (BNT162b2 V9), suboptimal dosing interval in the repeat dose study, lack of repeat dose toxicity studies in a second species and genotoxicity studies with the novel excipients, and lack of studies investigating potential for autoimmune diseases were noted. However, these deficiencies are either adequately justified by the Sponsor or addressable by clinical data."

Nonclinical Evaluation Report BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATY™). Australian Government Therapeutic Goods Administration. January 2021.

Pfizer's Comirnaty brought their corporation around US$36 billion in revenue in 2021, and they expect to top that in 2022. Their product can't possibly protect anyone from an undefined clinical entity and a "virus" that does not exist. What we can see is that entire countries are being swindled out of billions of dollars while their hapless citizens are at risk of becoming genetically modified organisms in addition to the barrage of other toxic effects they are enduring from these injections.

Watch my interview with Dr Tom Cowan, where I discuss this in more detail.

The post Are the Pfizer-injected now GMOs? first appeared on Dr Sam Bailey.

website no use cookies, no spying, no tracking
to use the website, we check:
country: US · city: · ip:
device: computer · browser: CCBot 2 · platform:
counter: 1 · online:
created and powered by:
RobiYogi.com - Professional Responsive Websites
 please wait loading data...