Dear RFK, Jr. and Del Bigtree: Why Not Start at the Foundation?
January 2, 2025
About this time two years ago, I was writing an article entitled, “Fellow Libertarians – If You Like RFK, Jr., You’ll Also Like Del Bigtree” which was published on New Year’s Day 2022. In it, I encouraged libertarians to watch Del Bigtree’s show, The HighWire, and to oppose not just the mandating of COVID-19 vaccines, but the mandating of all vaccines.
That 2022 article was my humble effort to honor a couple of my
heroes. This article attempts to do the same with a couple of my new
ones. Learning is a cumulative process and I’ve learned a lot since
2022. My thoughts regarding microbes and vaccines have evolved.
Betrayal At Bethesda: ...
Best Price: $7.84
Buy New $11.66
(as of 08:20 UTC - Details)
Since 2022, some of the hopes expressed in my prior article have come to fruition. Far more people now grasp that COVID-19 vaccines are no one-off in terms of being problematic. Having more people understand that the whole array of vaccines needs reassessment—not just one stray that somehow went rouge—is progress.
However, as discussed below, what is needed even more urgently than a broadening of the review of vaccines (i.e., from one to the whole lot of them) is a deepening of that review, down to the foundation.
Well before 2022, I understood that the problems with vaccines ran through the whole bunch of them. But, I was blind to problems at the depths. Then, when discussing vaccines, I complained about pediatricians injecting children with vaccines without ever having looked at the prelicensure studies conducted on them. But, I made no similar complaints about the pediatricians giving those injections without ever having looked at the seminal studies which purportedly established the existence of the underlying microbes and their pathogenicity. That glaring hole in their knowledge flew under my radar—because I shared that knowledge gap with them.
A new perspective heading into 2025
It is obvious that any assessment of vaccines which starts at an arbitrary middle point, with unproven assumptions about the underlying causes of disease, is flawed. What is not so obvious at first glance is the stunning lack of proof of the pathogenicity of the microbes that vaccines purportedly “protect” us against. In the case of “viruses” it is not even clear that they exist as described, as the methods used in virology are jaw-droppingly illogical. I came to this realization primarily due to the work of a couple of my new heroes, Doctors Samantha Bailey and Mark Bailey. (Yes, they are married.)
For the last few years, the Baileys have been reviewing and analyzing the seminal studies which purportedly established the existence of and/or pathogenicity of many of the microbes vaccines supposedly protect against. Their findings will bowl you over.
The Baileys are the authors of The Final Pandemic, which was published in 2024, and Samantha is a co-author of the most recent edition of Virus Mania (first published in 2007). Their website has links to hundreds of videos, articles and other resources outlining their research and findings, and those of others (e.g., scientists, doctors, journalists), since first looking under the hood of virology.
Considering the reasonable arguments the Baileys have made, it is essential that any review of vaccines start at the foundation and consider two, separate aspects of claimed disease-causing microbes: 1.) existence; and 2.) pathogenicity.
If determinations made about a virus’s existence and/or a microbe’s pathogenicity are wrong, then any vaccine development downstream from, and dependent upon, those determinations is flawed.
Generally, those questioning the microbes which underly vaccines do not dispute the existence of bacteria, which can be viewed under a light microscope and separated out from other matter to be carefully studied. Their questions regarding bacteria usually focus on analyzing the true biological role they play (versus their alleged pathogenicity). Their questions regarding existence generally only come into play with viruses.
Existence and pathogenicity are, of course, clearly separate, distinct factors, but, as discussed below, the decades old “gold standard” method used in virology muddies the waters between the two.
Virus Existence Problems
For vaccines designed to protect against viruses, any work on their development rests, first and foremost, upon assumptions made about the underlying viruses’ existence. The validity of the vaccines’ development process therefore hinges upon the validity of those assumptions. This is a foundational premise but constantly overlooked.
A legitimate, scientific debate exists about the validity of the so-called gold standard method used to prove the existence of viruses. There is a growing list of highly credentialled medical and scientific professionals who are questioning that standard along with the Baileys, building on the work of others, including the ex-virologist, Dr. Stefan Lanka.
Most reasonable people unfamiliar with the gold standard method would likely assume that the following steps are taken to determine whether a virus exists and, if so, whether it causes illness: 1.) proving the existence of the virus in nature; and 2.) proving that the virus found to exist in Step 1 causes the illness in question.
Well, the gold standard method employed by the virologists fails to satisfy this obvious, common-sense approach. The method they call “isolation” involves a process that in no way bears resemblance to the common understanding of that word. There is no natural discovery and separating out of any “virus” in the process.
Boiled down to its essence, the gold standard method is simply the dying of cellular material (the “cytopathic effect”) in a cell culture that has been infused with a mixture of multiple inputs. One of these inputs is generally fluid from a sick person. The rest is a crude mixture containing numerous genetic sequences and proteins, as well as potential toxins. Additional chemicals such as antibiotics and antifungals are also added to the culture, which can also be stressed in other ways. Following this, the appearance of cytopathic effects is claimed as proof that a virus has been isolated (shown to exist). Said another way, there is an assumption made in the process that the cytopathic effect within the cell culture is due to a virus in the aforementioned mixture. There is, by extension, at least one other assumption made—that nothing else contained in that mixture caused the cytopathic effect.
This is an illogical method that puts the cart before the horse—using a cytopathic effect that occurred within a cell culture infused with a mixture of inputs as the basis to prove the existence of a purported virus within that culture.
Additionally, genetic sequences found within the mixture are then asserted to be the virus or part thereof (and to be the source of any illness causing effect). These genetic sequences of unestablished origin (unestablished other than that they are known to be derived from the mixture the cell culture was infused with) are then said to be the thing (the “virus”).
It turns out, there are assumptions galore in this thing called
virology. If you want to take a deeper dive into the critiques of
so-called isolation, genomics, PCR testing, antibodies, electron
microscopy and more, there are ample resources at drsambailey.com and ViroLIEgy.com.
Summer, 1945: Germany,...
Best Price: $23.00
Buy New $24.95
(as of 11:41 UTC - Details)
The Missing Virus Problem
Fortunately, a section discussing the problems associated with determining what, if any, illnesses are caused by viruses can be short and sweet. It is irrational to attempt to analyze whether a microbe not proven to exist causes illness. It is impossible to properly design studies to test such causation using the scientific method and valid controls, in the absence of the microbe itself. A far more extensive, sophisticated argument along these lines, with supporting materials, is set forth by Dr. Mark Bailey in his article, “Virology’s Event Horizon” dated March 31, 2024.
Since 2020, independent researcher Christine Massey has engaged in a long journey, using Freedom of Information Act requests to ask health and science institutions throughout the world to provide proof of the existence of multiple viruses. Thus far, no such proof has been provided. Dr. Sam Bailey’s September 29, 2024 interview of Massey is well worth the watch. Massey’s work corroborates that the Baileys and other critics of virology are on the right track.
Conclusion
As 2025 rides in, there is a realistic chance that the U.S. will embark upon, at least to some extent, an overhaul of its regulatory scheme applicable to vaccines. The subjects of my 2022 article, RFK, Jr. and Bigtree, hold even greater sway now than they did in 2022, with RFK, Jr. to potentially join the Trump Administration and Bigtree’s audience even larger now. My hope for the upcoming year is that both men will favor ushering in a reassessment for each vaccine that starts at its foundation—to require proof, truly based upon the scientific method, of the existence of, and pathogenicity of, the specific microbe each vaccine purportedly protects against.
No comments:
Post a Comment