E64: Dr. Mark Bailey & Autumn McLees

Virology: A Narrative, Not a Science. 

Questioning Medicine's Most Sacred Cow

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

Christian Elliot

Hello everyone, welcome to episode number 64. I have a whopper of an episode for you today. What if there is no such thing as a virus? If that's true, how might that shape the way you see illness? If that's true, what in the world did we live through during COVID? As you can imagine, if viruses are not real, that would have major implications on so many levels. 

 

Now, as always, I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with anything, but I will say that this episode is probably the most eye-opening conversation I have had yet about the medical model. I suspect this episode will make you think on a level that you have not yet. Or at least it did that for me. So a little context here, shortly after the COVID era started, someone challenged me with the thought, you've never seen a picture or a video of a virus. And I said, What? And their response was, yeah, you've only ever seen an artist rendering or an animation of viruses. And I thought for sure I could find a picture of a virus, but he was right. All I could find was pictures and videos of other microbes, not viruses. 

 

So, like I do with a lot of topics, I filed that one and I looked into it off and on over the years, and frankly, the more I looked into it, the more compelling the case became that viruses are an illusion. I now see the idea of viruses as agenda-driven fakery that can't stand up to serious scrutiny. So around the same time, I also learned to ask the question, qui bono, which means who benefits. It turns out, asking qui bono, as you can imagine, is useful for all sorts of conventional narratives. Relevant to this episode, who benefits from me believing in viruses? Ponder that. So fast forward to 2026, and someone reached out to me and pitched me on hosting the episode you are about to hear. 

 

So it's finally time for me to cover this topic in my deconstructing conventional style. So to do that, I have two guests for you today. The first is Dr. Mark Bailey, who was a practicing physician for 16 years. When he was challenged like I was about viruses, unlike me, he did the deepest dive into the topic that I am aware of. He has looked at virtually all of the original papers on everything related to proving or disproving the existence of viruses, specifically and of the germ theory of contagion in general. So Mark has since written or co-authored three books on the topic, and he has repeatedly invited virologists to debate him. 

 

And not surprisingly, he has a hard time getting any taker. So there's your first hint. Anytime someone refuses a debate, that's a clue as to who is likely winning the argument. So when you hear him lay out the history of virology, you can kind of see why no one wants to debate him. He knows history and he knows how to read research papers. So, side note here, to his credit, Del Bigtree did recently host what I would consider kind of more of a discussion than a debate on the topic, but it was refreshing to hear people from different perspectives showing us how to have fair, rational dialogue between people who disagree. 

 

So I'll put a link to that conversation in the show notes in case you want to check it out. My second guest is Autumn McCleese. She is a fellow podcaster from Outside the System, and she and I have so many things in common. Her contribution to this episode puts a human face on what can go terribly wrong if we blindly accept a diagnosis and allow ourselves to be put on the medical system's fear-inducing conveyor belt. When given a life-threatening diagnosis of a viral infection, she had enough sense to pump the brakes and explore other options. 

 

Autumn has also discovered, like I have, that so much of the alternative world is more or less the same model of testing and pills. So Autumn adds some color commentary as we go through the interview, and her story is a great reminder of the importance of questioning everything and not letting fear win the day into your mind. Okay, before I play the episode, let me give you a few caveats. So one important thing is that none of us are denying that people get sick or saying that some people in the same environments don't get sick at the same time. We all know that happens. 

 

But I hope you become fascinated to ponder the possibility that maybe there is another explanation for illness. Maybe people that live in the same space and obviously the same season of the year, and consume the same air and water and food, and are exposed to the same EMFs and other pollutants, and are likely experiencing similar stress and hopes and expectations, maybe those commonalities have something to do with why people get sick simultaneously. 

 

So toward the end of the interview, you'll hear me mention the idea that in my mind anyway, there are kind of two categories of illness that typically get blamed on contagion. There are generic symptoms and specific symptoms. So since we ran out of time to tease that out, I promised to lay out that framework here in my opening monologue. So let me give you some context. Examples of so-called infections with very generic symptoms are things like influenza, coronaviruses, or mosquito-borne illnesses like malaria, dengue, or even Lyme and Epstein Bar. 

 

So generic symptoms are things like nausea, diarrhea, fever, congestion, fatigue, mucus, body aches, and so on. In other words, regardless of the microbe someone supposedly tested positive for, and wait until you hear how Mark explained what is being tested, the symptoms are so generic that it's much easier to exercise suspicion about the idea of viruses or contagion. But the other category of symptoms blamed on contagion or viruses can be very specific symptoms. And this is where it gets really interesting and where I wanted to give you some additional intellectual pegs to think about as you ponder your own experience. 

 

So undoubtedly, as many of you listen to this episode, you'll have the thought, yeah, but what about this? And you'll pull from an experience you've had that's hard to explain without the familiar construct of contagion. So as I was preparing for this interview, I was watching a video where Mark and his wife Sam were discussing various childhood illnesses. And Sam made the point that while we don't know all the reasons for such illnesses, we do know that kids only have so many detox options available to them, which was a new thought for me. 

 

And so I started pondering different childhood milestones I had learned about over the years. So let me give you some ideas to work with. Some of you may know this, but when a baby is born, they can't sweat or produce any tears for the first few days or weeks of life. Now, the movements babies have are initially reflexive and not voluntary. Another fun example for me, anyways, because I have five boys, was learning that uh around the age of five, or before the age of five, I should say, children do not have the capacity for empathy, which made things make so much more sense. For some reason, I couldn't get through to my four-year-old boys when I asked them, how do you think that makes your brother feel when you hit him in the face like that? 

 

They would predictably look at me with a face that said, Thank you for that totally irrelevant question, Dad. I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you please remove that obstacle so I don't have to hit him again? Learning that they have not developed the capacity for empathy freed me from trying to argue with my four-year-old about walking a mile in his brother's shoes. I was I was slow on the uptake with my first three boys, but I get it now. 

 

So another interesting developmental milestone is that kids' kneecaps don't actually form into bone until ages six, eight, or even ten years old. And the developmental milestone we all know about is puberty. So my point here is that there are a set of known biological processes that can't and don't happen until we reach a particular age. So, beyond environment, could biological milestones be one of the reasons kids tend to have a set of specific symptoms or so-called childhood infections like hand, foot, mouth, or chickenpox or warts, or even febral seizures? Could it be that the experience a lot of teenagers have that gets labeled as mono is not a virus, but simply an episode of the immune system flexing a new capability? 

 

Interesting thoughts, right? So my point here is we're not taught to ask curious questions like that because we're told the simple explanation that you have a virus, it causes illness, and you need to take an anti, an antiviral, an antifungal, or antibiotic, or anti-inflammatory, and so on. And sure enough, symptoms can diminish when you take an anti. But does blunting the body's ability to produce symptoms mean we have fixed something, or might we have handed the body another stressor to overcome? And I won't spoil it for you, but I'll challenge you adults to do some similar pondering for situations like herpes or even food poisoning, both of which we touch on toward the end of the episode. 

 

Um, on a related note, if you've not heard my podcast about the myth of unbalanced hormones, which is episode number 59, that's another place I've attempted to flex the muscle of curiosity and explore ideas outside the medical explanations and interventions. In that episode, I take on topics like cancer, autoimmunity, weight gain, erectile dysfunction, hot flashes, and more. Okay, the last point I'll make here is what I hope you take as a wide angle encouragement. I imagine what I say next to be more of a reminder than a new thought, but it's worth repeating. 

 

My friends, we live in a world of curated stories, where puppet masters spin narratives in an attempt to trap us in binary either-or boxes. Boxes that are designed to keep us fighting each other. We do not have to play that game. We do not have to go with left or right, blue puppet or red puppet. We can reject the premise that we have to agree with everything a party or politician or doctor or a tiny country does. We are free to reject the premise that if you're not for this, whatever this is, then you're obviously for that, whatever that is. 

 

We don't have to accept the binary option of lab leak virus or natural virus to explain COVID. If viruses are not real, we are free to say what else might explain why we get sick. If virology is fakery, what do we do with so-called gain of function? If viruses are not real, what did we live through during COVID? You are free to say, I'm gonna explore option C or D. You don't have to pick A or B. So, like the rest of you, I don't know everything either, but I will keep doing my best to be an investigator alongside you. 

 

On that note, if you want someone who will help you investigate your health puzzle, someone who has made a career out of asking different questions and connecting dots, doctors were never trained to connect. If that's something you're interested in, reach out. You can find out how to get a hold of me in the show notes. Helping people solve the puzzle of their health and finding answers outside the medical system is what I do all day. So sometimes the best answers can come from those of us who were never in the system in the first place. That typically means we have fewer things to unlearn, and that we've spent a lot of time finding these simple hidden gems and the foundational healing principles not taught inside the system. 

 

To reinforce that point, during the interview, Mark gave me some of the most candid insights into the medical profession I've ever heard. I was able to ask him questions that even so-called awake doctors are not willing to answer or admit on the record. So wait until you hear what he has to say about the training doctors receive in med school, the usefulness or lack thereof of lab tests, how well they understand the risks of what they prescribe, and how many can even name the ingredients in a single vaccine. 

 

Okay, my hope is that this episode inspires you to enjoy a new intellectual playground. Once you've seen a big lie, it frees you to ask, what else have I been lied to about? And I can say for me, it has been liberating to no longer fear germs. So my challenge to you as you listen is stay fascinated. Maybe even say, wow, if that's true, that could change some things. Hopefully, we displayed a healthy mix of humility, curiosity, and fair questions. Like both of my guests, I have a lot of hope for humanity. So without further ado, let me introduce you to two of my new friends and courageous kindreds, Dr. Mark Bailey and Autumn McClease. 

 

Okay, hello everyone. Welcome to today's show. I have not one but two lovely guests for you. The first is Mr. Mark Bailey. He is a conventionally trained MD. He won the undergraduate scholarship to the University of Canterbury in 1994 and then completed his medical training at the University of Otago in 1999. He worked in many specialties as a resident doctor and was also working as a clinical trials researcher physician for several years. And in 2016, he left clinical practice after 16 years. Mark is also the author of A Farewell to Virology. 

 

He is the co-author of uh The COVID-19 war, or sorry, the COVID-19 fraud and war on humanity, and the co-author of The Final Pandemic. Uh, also with me today is Autumn McCleese. She is a fellow podcaster uh with a show called No Better, Do Better. And similar to me, Autumn is a former patient-turned truth-teller, I guess you could say. We both kind of had our run through the medical system, really realizing that hang on, they don't really have answers for me. And so her story was about being labeled with a virus and eventually figured out there was that was nothing more than what she described as narrative wrapped in pseudoscience. And before agreeing to take a medication with known severe side effects, which included a black box warning, uh, she decided to pursue an uncharted path into holistic healing first, uh, with medication becoming the last resort. And in the process of seeking answers, she uncovered something much bigger. And basically, that is that the entire hepatitis C narrative was built on flawed science and unproven assumptions. So we have a lot to cover today. So, Mark and Autumn, thank you so much for joining me today. It's so awesome to have you here.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Thank you. Uh thank you, Christian. Thank you for that introduction and lovely to be here.

Autumn McLees

Yes, so excited to be here and uh chat with you about this.

Christian Elliot

Okay, cool. Well, Mark, we'll start with you. So tell us your story. I'm very fascinated by your work. So, really, what got you into medicine and what was it that made you start questioning this viral narrative?

Dr. Mark Bailey

Well, I grew up in a family that was, you know, university educated. My father was a veterinarian, and he was encouraging me to do something similar. And at school and then at university, I was getting very, very high grades and winning scholarships, etc. And it just became the natural progression that I got accepted into medical school. I did love science, the biological sciences and nature in particular. So it just seemed like a natural path to take. 

 

Now, when I was training as a medical student in the 1990s, it coincided with uh a period where I was becoming a professional athlete as well in Geoathlon, which is running and cycling. And there quickly became this divergence between what I was learning and what I was expected to do with my patients versus what I would accept for myself, my own body and my family members. And many of the procedures, the surgical procedures and many of the pharmaceuticals were not something I would be interested in as someone who was looking, you know, to be as healthy as possible and be a high performance athlete. 

 

So by the time I graduated at the end of 1999, well, I have to be honest, I completed my first day at work and uh it was actually in a psychiatric ward, and I witnessed horrendous things. And I came home and thought to myself, I I can't do this. This is I I've made a mistake here. Of course, at that point, you have invested heavily of uh, you know, six years of higher education, uh, a lot of money and time has gone into it, and an expectation because people are praising you for being this doctor, and at the same time I became a pro-athlete, and I had this combination, which uh obviously the establishment loved, this doctor you could put on magazine covers, etc. 

 

And uh but for me it was just this absolute discomfort of being in a profession that I wasn't really happy with. And it wasn't like I wasn't happy with anything, like I did witness great things. I saw lives being saved, you know, in cases of extreme trauma uh when people had serious uh fractures and uh things like that, we could we could definitely help. Um we we witnessed some really amazing stuff. But most of the time, the day-to-day grind of what I was doing, I was really unsure initially if we were helping many people at all. And over time it just got worse and worse. 

 

So I had a period where I was searching within medicine for a a field that I could get into that appeared to do the less damage because within medicine it's strange because you look at certain specialties and you think, well, they're just quacks in that specialty, or they're absolutely appalling in that specialty. And you try and find something that you think is scientifically based and helpful to the community, et cetera. And to be honest, I just couldn't find anything. I was just swimming around trying to find something I could do. 

 

Now, eventually I settled on uh musculoskeletal medicine, which is a it's sort of related to the orthopedics, but there's no we don't operate on people. It's um much more uh physician-based, if you like. There is some injections in that that the practitioners do, but for me it felt like it was something uh less damaging and more holistic. But even looking back on that now, I realized it was still uh embedded in what we know obviously as allopathic medicine. Now, when I was practicing medicine, I didn't know that I was an allopath. 

 

I didn't nobody had said that term to us. It was not a term. That was after I got out of the medical system. And at first um, when I started doing my own research, I realized that that's what we were doing. And, you know, my wife Sam uh Bailey, who's also a doctor. We were just incredulous that we thought we didn't even know the name of what we were doing. We just thought it was conventional medicine or mainstream medicine, and we didn't realize it was a specific type of medicine, allopathy, which is the suppression and uh of symptoms, basically, rather than a holistic uh health system. And and I think really for me that was the summary of what I felt was wrong, the instincts that I had from day one in medicine was that these were practices that while some of them might have some utility, most of them were were not helpful and they were going against nature and they were suppressing symptoms and they were actually creating their own business model, if you like,

 

 by trapping people inside a world where they had to keep taking pharmaceuticals or became dependent on going to see the doctor all the time, or uh required multiple surgeries one after the other to fix previous mistakes. And yeah, it was something that for me just became increasingly uncomfortable. 2016 I thought, okay, that's it. Um I was in a clinic one day and I was looking at the patient and I thought I really want to help this person. And I just thought I can't because if I say the things I need to say, I'm I'm going to probably get struck off and lose my license because it's going to involve speaking out against my fellow doctors. It's going to involve speaking out against the medical pharma system, the way the government organizes healthcare. And I just thought, I can't do this. 

 

This is not a position I can hold anymore. And the nurse who was in the clinic there working with me, she looked at me and she said, Are you okay? And I just said, I can't do this anymore. And she said, I can see it on your face. She said, I think, you know, you've got to make that decision. And I said, I'm I'm gonna leave. And and it was amazing. She could just see it on my face that I meant it. And I said to my clinic, I'm I'm going to close down my practice and I won't be seeing patients anymore. They all thought I was just taking a break, you know, that I'd be back, just needed a bit of time out. And uh no, for me that was it. 

 

It was a a permanent thing. That was I never went back to medicine ever, ever again. Now at that point, I thought I'm having nothing more to do with the entire sector. I thought I'll just do other things. I was um, you know, would had had a couple of kids by then and I started homeschooling them a little bit, started spending lots of time with the family, doing other things, and just taking a different path. And my wife, Sam, she was uh she came through med school six years after me, so she was a bit younger. And so she wanted to keep working. 

 

She had a clinical research job at the time, and she was just adored by the patients. And I think the patients were um re were coming in to do the clinical trials based on my wife. They were just so happy that she was going to be their doctor and that they got to talk to her that they had no problems recruiting people into their clinical research. And um and then she got asked to be a network television presenter. Now, this seems so strange now, and people that know Dr. Sam Bailey cannot imagine that she'd be like a network television presenter, but she became one in 2019. And, you know, I thought I was sort of okay with it, and you know, we didn't know where that was going. And then Sam decided to start up her own YouTube channel. And this coincided with December 2019. Sam kicks off this YouTube channel. And straight away she's thinking, well, I can just, as a doctor, I can just get in front of camera and start speaking for, you know, 10 or 15 minutes about topics that I know about. 

 

Now, within a few days, we start getting feedback, and people start saying things like, you know, uh, you've been hoodwinked or you're indoctrinated in allopathic medicine. And we, this is the first time we've heard anything like it, getting this kind of feedback from the public. And people are saying, uh, you I wouldn't be advising that medication. Don't you know about all the problems? That medication almost killed me. And initially we were thinking, hey, we're the doctors here. 

 

We've we're fully educated and we know how this works. And then within a few weeks, we thought, actually, let's just listen to what some of these stories are about, these people telling us how they've almost been killed by doctors before, da-da-da-da. And we start looking into it and it's like, oh my goodness, we were horrified. We thought, how were we not aware of all of these problems in the industry that were, you know, as I say, I was I'd left by then because I wasn't happy with it, but I didn't know the extent to how bad it was the industry we'd been part of. And so this starts happening. So already December 2019, we're starting to get this different mindset of, hey, we better listen when people start telling us that you may have been tricked and that you should probably look at some other research that will take it seriously. 

 

Start of 2020, people start talking about this thing happening in Wuhan, that people are dropping dead in the street. And Sam and I start watching some videos, and we get a sense that it's faked or something not right about the whole situation. And then her audience, which is really starting to grow quickly, like, you know, at one point before she got censored, um, she could pick up thousands of subscribers a day. Like, you know, because they could see, okay, here's a doctor that seems to be about to spill the beans about everything. 

 

So a lot of people became interested in what she was saying. And Sam said to me, Um, I need you to help me with this channel. And, you know, there's just the questions and the research, it's going to take more than I can do. And so I said, Yeah, that's fine. I said, Well, what do you think I should look into? And she said, Well, this situation brewing in Wuhan, uh, people are saying there's a coronavirus potentially or something happening, some contagious thing. And I said, Okay, and my first day of research, I came back and I said to Sam, I there's something wrong with this because I said, I can't find one paper that shows the existence of this entity that they're talking about. It's all speculation, it's all based on opinions, it's all based on WHO press releases and things that the CDC are saying. I said, 

 

I can't actually find anything to sink my teeth into. And but I have listened to a couple of people who are saying that virology's got major problems and they'd recommended a book called Virus Mania. So I quickly get a copy of this book and I read it in like 48 hours, and I'm like, oh no, I just it blew my world to pieces. And I sat Sam down and I said, look, there's a big problem with not only virology, but with the concept of infectious diseases, the concept of diagnostics, the concept of contagion. I said, This book, and I and I said it's got thousands of references, it all checks out, is basically saying that there probably is no such thing as viruses as we've been told. And of course, like anyone, we had a hundred questions and it just um sent us into months and months and months of research. 

 

And then eventually we became what were known as the no virus kind of people, where we were saying that viruses don't exist, uh, contagion's not a thing as we've been told, and that there are not pathogens, there are not uh microbes that cause disease. They may be associated with disease and uh etc. But yeah, so that's that's kind of the the pathway that took us into uh 2020, uh, which is when you know my wife Sam became extremely well known. Her videos um were getting millions of views until the big tech platforms obviously started shutting them down and banning them everywhere. But uh that's yeah, that's how we got to it. And and needless to say, Sam quickly abandoned um Alipathy as well. 

 

And her path was a bit different because she really got struck off. They really went crazy and she didn't want a license anymore. And unlike me, who I went out quietly in 2016, and they did still try and prosecute me later on for what I was saying about COVID because I was still on the register. I didn't realise that you had to get your name off it. Um, but for Sam, they've just they've spent five years trying to prosecute her, and we we've not stopped publishing. We have uh continued to put uh papers and videos out every week, um, books out each year, and uh we'll we'll continue to do so despite the fact that the establishment has thrown a lot of resources into trying to stop our publications.

Christian Elliot

Wow. I did not know all of that backstory. I've I've heard pieces of it, but I so many fascinating things in there, especially the we didn't actually know we were practicing allopathy. Like I would have thought that was just you know part of day one of medical schools. Like, this is the model. I've even commented recently on a podcast, I think we should stop calling conventionally trained doctors medical doctors, because that's just that's Latin for doctor. It's just like saying doctor doctor. 

 

Like, let's just call them allopathic doctors, and we'll be honest. Everybody else has to identify themselves by what kind of medicine they practice. So fascinating that even in medical school, you didn't know that until other people pointed it out.

Dr. Mark Bailey

No, and I should add, dear Christian, there's something interesting about the word allopathy. And we mentioned this at the start of our book, The Final Pandemic, which we released a couple of years ago, that they changed the definition of allopathy during the COVID-19 era, because previously the dictionaries had the honest definition, which was that it was a practice of medicine that was targeting the suppression of symptoms or the cutting out of things, you know, using surgical practices. 

 

And halfway through COVID, the major dictionaries, which are controlled by the establishment obviously, they changed the definition to uh science and evidence-based practice of medicine. And uh we were just like we we put it in our book because we were like, this is so obvious that they changed the definition just as the world, including us, is becoming more familiar with this term alipathy, and uh they were trying to sanitize it because suddenly it didn't look so good. 

 

And um I agree, I don't even think, and you know, you'll talk to other practitioners ex-doctors like Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman. We we don't even think that we should call uh real medicine alternative medicine. I mean, yeah what what they do in allopathy that should be called alternative. That's not real medicine or real health practitioners, you know.

Christian Elliot

Yeah. I've I learned years ago that allopathic is two Greek words. It's other and suffering, like mashed together. That's what the word actually means. And so much uh that I also learned recently that Noah Webster wrote the dictionary because he knew that people in power would work to change terms or redefine them to suit their own interests. So it's one of the big things I try to do on the show, besides review some history, is also define terms so that we can move forward knowing what we're talking about. So I love it that you're on to this verbal sleight of hand that um the powers that be try to put us in.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, and I'd really encourage listeners. Uh, one thing we use is uh etymology uh online, which is a fantastic you look up words, and because words like infection, contagion, etc., what they mean today is not necessarily what they originally meant. Uh words like virus are the same. 

 

These are all linguistic sleights of hand that have been purposefully done to get the public to think in a different way. So when someone says to me a word like contagion or infection, I have to check with them what they mean. Do they mean the original sense of the word or do they mean the sense of the word that the public has been led to believe in recent years?

Christian Elliot

Yeah, it's like inflation. It used to mean expanding the money supply. Now it's just like things just get more expensive. Like so, anyway, I I love it that you're part of that. Yeah. Okay, well, Autumn, let's let's bring you in here because you bring an interesting angle to this discussion and what often gets lost in a debate about whether or not viruses exist or some of the more scientific, technical things, is just the real human story and the impacts on the life of a person. So, like I said earlier, similar to me, you come at this through I I gotta get my own physical house in order because I if I run this forward, it's not going anywhere good. And I realize the medical system, I've just hit a bunch of dead ends. And that was in some ways your story. So you've got a mysterious illness, you get a diagnosis. So talk us through what happened to you and kind of your awakening to this viral narrative.

Autumn McLees

Yeah, so I come from a place of um what started out as hopelessness, which I hope people listening can possibly relate to because that's my goal. I think there's a lot of hopelessness in the allopathic medicine model. 

 

People think there's one way, one path, and it's not true, and they're so blinded by what they actually need to know about symptoms, about illness, about what's happening to them, that unfortunately most people don't know that information, and I didn't know either. So my story starts back when I actually was diagnosed many, many years ago with um what they call an autoimmune disease, which I have since come to challenge that as well. Um but I saw a holistic practitioner that basically guided me in helping me change my diet, change my lifestyle, help my stress. 

 

She threw a couple supplements at me. And in four months, my body, not her, my body reversed this supposed incurable situation. So that built my belief at the time. I mean, there's more I could go into prior to that of how I woke up to like holistic options and all that stuff, but we're here to educate you on that so we can cut out all that. Um, but anyway, reverse this incurable condition, which my OBGYN said was not possible to reverse, and we reversed it. So that built my belief, trucking along, leading this, you know, healthy lifestyle. 

 

I mean, there was some things that I fell into, got a little bit too focused with work and sitting and not exercising enough and that kind of thing. But I one day go see that uh, you know, holistic practitioner to get some routine labs done. And she notices that my liver enzymes are sky high. She says, Oh my gosh, we need to test you for the different types of hepatitis viruses. So she does. We get the results, it comes back with hepatitis C. Now, are you familiar with hepatitis C and just the whole um you know paradigm that that, like what they say about that? Do you happen to know, Christian?

Christian Elliot

Well, I not as well as you do or you lived experience. So you you take the lead and dial everybody in on the city.

Autumn McLees

So it's a blood, it's a blood-borne, they say it's a blood-borne viral infection. They say it affects the liver, and it's you know, obviously caused by a virus. So somehow you came in contact with someone else's blood that had it, which there was no way that that happened to me. They also say you can get it through tattoos, blood transfusions, um, drugs. I've never done a drug in my life, don't have any tattoos, never had a blood transfusion. Um, and you know, intercourse is debatable, but actually my husband and I have only been with each other and he doesn't have it. So she presents this diagnosis to me, and I about fell out of the chair I'm sitting in because I'm like, there's no way I can have this. Like, there's no way. 

 

I went through an identity crisis of like, how did this happen to me? Like, did someone come in in the middle of the night and like stab me with a needle? Like, what is happening? I said, we have to redo this blood work. Like, they mixed up my blood with somebody else. This this is not possible. So she redoes it, comes back, sure enough, you know, I have it. And I the enemy, like Satan used this to take me down into a complete and utter identity crisis. I didn't know who I was, I didn't know which way was up, I didn't know how this happened to me. This is a deadly circumstance that I'm in. And then I went to a regular um, what do they call the doctors now that you go to for viruses? I can't think of the term, but I went to a regular allopathic doctor, uh gastroenterologist, I think it was. Is that right, Dr. Baby? I can't remember. Anyway.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yep. That's who you want to say? Yep.

Autumn McLees

Okay, yeah, because I can't remember because I haven't seen him in so long. But um went to a gastroenterologist. He said, you know, you've got to take this uh$80,000 medication and it'll get rid of it. So I, you know, I I hear him out and he's like, Yeah, I think you've had this for about two to three years based on your viral load, which is hysterical to me because I've actually kept track of it for the first couple of years. 

 

I kept track of it pretty good. Um, off and on, you know, every couple months. And the viral load literally goes up and down all over the place. I mean, it would be in the thousands to you know, close to a hundred, you know, thousand and whatnot. And so um, it'd just be all over the place. So um basically I sit with this diagnosis, I look at the the side effects, and the side effects are actually have a black box warning and could uh mean death if you take this medication. 

 

While they say it's supposed to heal you, you literally have to put your life on the line. And the very organ that is supposedly struggling is the organ that is mostly gonna take the beating for taking this medication. So it's a very concerning and serious situation. So here I am, medication, potentially death. If I don't take the medication, potentially death. And so I hope people can just sit with this for a minute because this is what some people get served, they get proclaimed life and death over their life. Doctors proclaim things, how long they're gonna live, how long they've had this. It's like somehow they know it all. 

 

And so I started researching. I thought to myself, no, I am not gonna take this. I am going to see surely if my body was made to heal by God, surely there is some other option. And I'm gonna start researching. Well, I ran upon um the Bailey's work, uh Kaufman and Cowan's work, and this whole idea got planted in my head of there might not be viruses. And I thought, well, that's very interesting, but I don't know if I can grasp on to that. So slowly but surely I kept researching this, kept looking at it, um, got the book that Dr. Sam Bailey has now co-authored Virus Mania. And they have a uh uh hepatitis C section in there, uh uh chapter. 

 

And so I got to learn some of the backstory, and then I invited Dr. Sam Bailey on the podcast, which I ended up starting a podcast because of this crazy obscure Left Field diagnosis. And I then realized, okay, I'm hearing all these people talk about this, but I need to really see this for myself. So I dug into more of the science and the literature that's out there. I even went so far as to go to the lab that does my that has done my blood work, and I pulled up the step-by-step process of what they're doing just to see for myself and worked through it all. And yeah, they're not finding a virus in my blood, Christian. 

 

Their definition of isolation, which we will get into, like you were all just saying, the definitions matter. They're not isolating a virus out of my blood, they're not finding a virus, it's jumping to conclusions, it's pseudoscience, and it's absolutely insane that science is getting away with this, that people's lives. I mean, I thought it was my life was coming to an end. 

 

I cried over it, I I meant I went into a dark place over it until I got myself, my wits about me again and stood back on my own two feet, grounded myself in the Lord, and you know, was determined to figure this out and make it make sense. And so there's many people out there with pro proclamations over their life and disease titles that they've been labeled with. They might not have those things, and we're gonna get into so much here to help many of the listeners challenge the science, question things and not be just a sheep that follows. 

 

Because I've realized the difference is taking ownership versus just complying. And medication just involves complying, but honest ownership starts with asking questions and being willing to learn even though you don't know everything. Yeah.

Christian Elliot

So did you when you got this original, I guess sounds like routine lab test, were you presenting significant symptoms, or was it just felt fine and your liver enzymes were high?

Autumn McLees

Yeah, no, I had I felt fine, just liver enzymes were high. And and that's another thing I gotta bring up because in this particular and let hepatitis C, I know you know, not everyone's gonna be labeled with hepatitis C that's listening, but let this be the thing that wakes you up and helps you realize that their sloppy science of what they do here applies to all the other diagnoses as well. And so you can have hepatitis C and actually have nothing wrong with your liver. 

 

Make that make sense. I don't know, it's somehow a deadly liver virus, but some people out there have been diagnosed with hepatitis C, told they need an$80,000 medication, and yet their liver's fine. So I'm not denying that there might be my liver is going through something, but I certainly know it's not a virus. They're not finding a virus, and so now I'm just addressing my liver in natural ways to support it and heal it that way. But yeah, it it's it's wild how you know they can just go off labeling people and then people take the medication and you know who knows what happens to them from there, unfortunately.

Christian Elliot

But what your story highlights is the significant emotional impacts of a label. You didn't even have a symptom, you just got a label, and suddenly you're like, oh my gosh, am I gonna die? And that sent you through I don't know the full timeline yet, we'll get into that, but uh uh options of medical interventions that are appalling. And to rewind and and deconstruct that and look for like how did I get here and what can I do differently? We'll we'll get into. 

 

But whoa, that's um, I'm glad you're sounding the um I guess warning bells, just awareness so people can see this kind of thing. So, Mark, let me shift back to you. So if you would rewind history for us a little bit, I don't know if you want to go back to the invention of the microscope or Louis Pasteur or wherever else, but give us some history as context here. When did this idea of viruses and contagion, and maybe we need to define those terms better, but when did the idea of these small and tiny things that are too small to see with a microscope that can make us sick, when did that get implanted into our consciousness and really codified into established fact and Western medicine?

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, well, this is a fascinating story, Christian. And I think uh Autumn's um experience there is perfect because as she said, you know, when she had those tests, she thought they were testing for a virus. 

 

She thought they were taking her blood and finding viruses, etc. But this comes back to the pivotal problem with virology that very few people realize, even those who are virologists, so called experts in this field. The field of virology invented itself. itself before establishing if viruses existed. So think about that for a minute. It's very unusual. You know, that's most of the time if you think about something in the natural sciences. So if you wanted to be an expert in bacteria, that's fine. You can be a bacteriologist because bacteria were found in nature. 

 

You know, we had the light microscope 1700s, people started looking, finding these little microbes and going, hey, wow, these look at these tiny little critters. They they seem to divide, they metabolize, they change, they do all these things and we can see them. And people assume well that must have happened with viruses. Surely they went out and found these things first and then started studying. No, they didn't. So what happened was in the late 1800s we've got the rise of the the germ theorists, you know, the originals, the Robert Cox, the Louis Pasteurs, etc. And what they made a fundamental mistake because firstly they thought that germs were their cause of disease when all they were witnessing was association with disease. 

 

So there'd be certain conditions like pneumonia or what they might have called strep throat, where bacteria could be found in high numbers or larger numbers than usual. And these guys said, well, they must be the cause of the problem rather than just being associated with the problem. So we know that when tissue becomes devitalized and when it dies, it's natural for the microbes to come in and metabolize the dead tissue and allow all the nutrients and the goodness to be put forward into more life in the future. So but the mistake was yeah saying that no, no, these germs are not only the cause of the problem but they're also contagious, that they're passing around from person to person causing these problems. 

 

Now so with some diseases they were finding or a lot of it was fraud to be honest. It's it's come out since then that these guys were falsifying their own notebooks, etc. But say there was a condition like TB, and they'd found they'd find mycobacterium tuberculosis and they'd say yep there it goes we can show it to you we can culture it we can look at this and you know or it might be Streptococcus and they'd say oh yep this is the cause of the sore throats and all these children recently we've found the Streptococcus and cultured it etc but then they were getting other diseases you know things and this is a problem disease classification but let's just pretend for a minute that there are specific diseases such as measles and smallpox and chickenpox. 

 

Now with these diseases they were not finding a consistent microbe like a bacterial species and you know no matter how much work they did sometimes they would blame a bacteria but then or a bacterial species but then in another case they wouldn't find it and or they'd find it too often just in everybody and say okay well that it doesn't seem to be that bacterium doesn't seem to be the problem. 

 

So instead of saying well maybe we're on the wrong track here maybe there's something even smaller than bacteria and fungal cells something we can't see with the current technology in the late 1800s. And initially they talked about this concept of a virus. Now the term came from the Latin and it simply meant poison or toxin which is reasonable because we do get those things occurring in nature. They did not have in mind some uh definition like we have today that it's a replication competent uh you know nano-sized particle protein shell containing genetic material that's an intracellular parasite that's the modern day conception of it back then they just thought there's some tiny little contagious thing smaller than bacteria and they start doing experiments and the first ones were in the late 1800s with the tobacco mosaic disease and they filtered some juice from one of the plants that was diseased and they put it through a filter that took out all of the bacteria and then they injected the liquid into other plants and said well look at that it's passed on. 

 

It must be some tiny little contagious microbe now those of us that have analyzed these studies are just we can't believe it. It's complete pseudoscience you know for a start whether they filtered these specimens or not the amount of damage that occurred to the other plants was totally dependent on traumatizing the plant like smashing its leaves or injecting things straight into its stem, etc there was no natural transmission. 

 

You couldn't just put the plants near each other because that's what they said was happening that the plants were spreading this disease around. So they did all these artificial experiments and regardless of whether they filtered the samples from the sick plants or not they still cause disease in the other plant. Now of course there's a number of reasons for that one is that you're traumatizing the plant you know through damaging its stem and leaves one is that you are injecting foreign material from one thing into another never a good idea you know it's like you wouldn't accept someone just taking a blood sample from your neighbor and going, can I inject this into you just to see what happens? 

 

I mean it's nothing to do with viruses and everything to do with the damage that's caused by injecting foreign substances into another organism. So there are all these problems with the experiments but somehow that's recorded in history is the first time a virus was ever isolated. And as Autumn said what isolation what there was no isolation they didn't find anything in the specimens. They didn't purify anything they didn't show anything at all. 

 

So by now though the rising germ theory has got the attention of the you know the beginning of the medico-pharmaceutical era and people are starting to say hey there's got to be vaccines that we can develop from these viruses. So you know that's when and obviously prior to that point we had of the tobacco mosaic experiments we had Louis Pasteur with his so-called rabies vaccines which history says he had great success with his own notebooks which were finally uncovered in the 1970s showed that the vaccines didn't work at all that they were killing most of the animals or made no difference whatsoever. 

 

So complete fraud that he propagated to the world and there were practitioners at the time like Montague Levison he wasn't actually a doctor but there were him and others who spoke out and said that Pasteur's vaccines kill more people than they save you know whether it's um anthrax or rabies, etc they were actually killing people. That's not the history we got told of course we got told that Pasteur and Cock were saving all these people with their vaccines when in fact it's not true. 

 

So anyway you know there's so many different elements to the story but we should probably move here to the 1930s because up to this point it is just speculation on the account of these um researchers who say that they've got viruses uh in their samples because the 1930s is when the electron microscope arrives on the scene and finally we can image things at the nanoscale tiny tiny little things and so the virologists of the time think fantastic now we just take the blood samples and the sputum samples we put them under the microscope and we see the viruses no problem the samples they don't look any different. 

 

The people who have the so-called viral diseases and the people who don't have the viral diseases they don't they can't distinguish them. You can't that's not a way to do it you know and the other issue was was that when they were imaging these things unlike the light microscope where you can see living images in their natural kind of form you can actually see bacteria dividing etc under the light microscope the electron microscope they're dead images because the samples have to be treated with chemicals they have to be dehydrated they have to be embedded in resin and then cut super thin that these things we don't even know if they represent what living tissue looks like. 

 

They could be complete artifact we don't have any other way to confirm whether that is what living tissue looks like so all of the structures that they were showing us anyway we don't actually necessarily know what their biological roles were. So the 1930s that should have been it they should have just said this this we've got no evidence for viruses we don't find them in nature we don't have any way to study them even if we do think they are there and the things should have been dead in the water. 

 

But you have to remember that does not suit the growing medico pharmaceutical industry that's not a good model for them. They need the virus model they need the contagion model. So around the 40s and then really developing into the 1950s the virologists invent this new thing called the cell culture the virus cell culture now this is this is based in a complete logical fallacy and I'm not going to get into the technical details here. I've written a paper about it that people can can read but the cell culture is is not valid because you're dealing with now you're dealing with an entity that's not even found in nature. 

 

You're taking a sample like a blood sample or a sputum sample you're mixing it with the cell line usually like monkey kidneys or something like that. They pick these cell lines because they're abnormal these cell lines and they have a propensity to break apart and splinter into all these different pieces. So they mix this all together and then they do various techniques of stressing this culture and over time it starts to break down and little particles appear and then they go that's the virus these little particles that appear now this is this is completely nonsensical for a number of reasons. 

 

One you that doesn't replicate what happens in nature and also the fact is is that once again they're not isolating anything. All they've done is create a bigger mixture of things now. And the times that they have tried to purify these particles these little nanoparticles they don't do anything. They don't make anyone sick. You have to if you want to make someone sick you have to give them either some sort of chemical poison or a toxic biological suit where you've got a whole lot of muck from one of these cell culture processes and then inject it into say one of the favorites is injecting it into the brain of a newborn mouse and if it causes the mouse to die or have a seizure they say there you go that it definitely contains the virus. 

 

So this is all the the pseudoscience that developed you know through to the middle of last century. And then so they have nothing at this point. This is the not finding them in nature the cell culture's invalid etc the animal experiments are just complete nonsense because they never ever have a purified viral specimen that makes any animal sick. The only way they can make animals sick is to inject entire biological mucks into their abdomens or brains or eyes or under their skin to cause reactions. And we've been through hundreds of these studies and none of them follow the scientific method none of them are controlled none of them prove the existence of viruses. 

 

So then we get to the 1980s and it all the game changes because by now they just forget about it. They don't even try to pretend that they're isolating viruses with the old techniques and they move into the biotech era and this is unfortunately the test that pulled Autumn into thinking initially that she had a virus. So really on a big scale it started in the 1980s with HIV. Now once again they did not find anything new. They didn't even find a new disease they told people that there was this thing called AIDS. Now AIDS by definition is a syndrome so it's not a specific disease it's a cluster of different diseases under an umbrella. And if you talk to the honest doctors who were around at that time they will say there was no new disease there was just a whole lot of old diseases which were repackaged into AIDS. What changed was the blood test and that was an antibody test. So the HIV antibody test meant that the cases just spread everywhere. Now when I say spread nothing spreading apart from the test is just getting taken up in different places around the world and they're going oh my goodness the cases are just building and you know Oprah Winfrey was saying that by the year 2000 a third of the Western world was going to be quote infected with HIV. 

 

That's how fast it was spreading but again it was like COVID nothing is spreading just the test that's what's happening. So and now it is it's just so frustrating now because they can just do a blood test and clock up another case and tell a person that's it you're infected. And question I just oh go ahead yeah no you you you say autumn what are you thinking?

Autumn McLees

Well I was just gonna say I just wanted to like recap for those listening so basically what they do is they take our blood they add dyes and chemicals and then the cytopathic effects that take place when you have that toxic soup mixed in your blood then they say oh see these right here these cytopathic effects this is caused from a virus not oh here's the virus out of your blood here it is it's all over the place it's replicating and multiplying all over the place it should be everywhere right no oh no we didn't find a virus but these cytopathic effects this is caused from a virus that's how they do the science okay so if I Yeah and it's it's really problematic because the other people can just do these um processes in the lab where they don't even add anything.

Dr. Mark Bailey

They just have the cell culture and they just add the same chemicals and same mixtures and the cell breaks down anyway and does the cytopathic effects. And if you passage it enough times which is when they you know starve the cell culture for a while and then take a sample off and add it to a fresh mixture if you do that eventually it just breaks down. 

 

Most cell types that they use that the virologists favor do anyway. So yeah there's all these problems and that's with the that's why they don't even do that most of the time because they know it's so problematic that in the modern world and when I say modern since the 1980s it's become the biotech stuff which is just based on these molecular tests. So first of all they have the antibody tests made famous in the by the HIV industry at the end of last century. And then earlier you know this century PCR started becoming much cheaper. And so the polymerase chain reaction is just a manufacturing technique to amplify the amount of genetic material that is in a sample. Now previously it was very expensive and it wasn't done very often so when I first started practicing medicine uh to get a PCR test you had to be at some special kind of uh unit and you had to get special authority and stuff. Now obviously by the time we hit the COVID era PCR was everywhere and rally it's still expensive but relatively cheap. 

 

And uh so nowadays uh the mainstay of so-called viral diagnostics comes back to antibody tests uh and the PCR which again neither of and this is what people really need to understand it's quite a simple thing neither of those processes requires the presence of a virus or the existence of a virus more correctly all you need is a biological specimen that contains proteins uh in the case of an antibody test and genetic material in the case of the PCR. 

 

Now you'll find that everywhere just you know go to the sewer you'll find this you know get some muck off the bottom of your shoe uh see what's under the couch all of these places you're going to find various proteins and various genetic sequences so that's problematic in a start um for for the starting point but the the bigger problem is when you try to make that a diagnostic and this is what's trapped people like autumn in the system is when they have a test and the doctors seriously believe that they have found a virus when they've done nothing of the sort.

 

And we do need to be careful here because we're not saying that the test has no relevance whatsoever because we know that say with things like HIV that if you have positive antibody assays with um for HIV, there is a reasonable chance that you may have some underlying condition of significance. But it's not a virus. And with HIV they know say that there are 60 odd conditions which will cause a positive result, including pregnancy and even severe trauma can sometimes cause the antibody test to go positive. But it's not yet people have to realize these tests do not require the existence of viruses.

Christian Elliot

Okay so if I'm going to try to summarize what a modern day virologist does they just take a group of cells they remove them from their environment they remove hydration and nourishment and blood supply and oxygen and any of the support structure that the body would have they then starve them dehydrate them stain them and kind of watch them deteriorate and they call the breakdown materials from that that's the virus that's showing that that's why these things are falling apart. Did I have that right?

Dr. Mark Bailey

You have that right but most of them wouldn't even do that today. They've gone beyond this because they say that they don't need to they treat that as some established science even though those of us who have analyzed it have said it's fundamentally flawed and is not connected to an actual process. 

 

These days all they care about is the detection of proteins and genetic sequences. So they spend a lot of time you know you you would have uh remembered Christian during the COVID era oh now we've got Omicron and now we've got this new yeah so all they're doing is looking at genetic sequences. 

 

So they're taking samples from people and the environment and running uh metagenomic processes on them to just find out what sequences they can find. We just point out to them that at no stage did they show that those sequences came from inside a virus. We're not denying that you can find these sequences we're just saying they don't come from inside a virus. And we know also from the COVID era that the most common symptom that people had from COVID was nothing. Like the most common positive test was in an asymptomatic person. 

 

That was extremely common. So this is really problematic problematic. And they even knew the Cochrane Collaboration people I couldn't believe that people doctors weren't paying attention at the time June 2020 Cochrane Collaboration publishes a systematic review of all the so-called COVID 19 studies that have been done at that point and conclude that there are no specific symptoms or signs for the whole thing. Yeah but hang on we're being told there's a new disease and it's very specific and da da da da and no. Cochrane Collaboration said they couldn't find any evidence that there was anything.

 

They said in in you know to try and save the publication they said oh perhaps loss of smell could be something but there was no statistical correlation. Loss of smell curiosity about what else might cause loss of smell either totally and it's very common with colds and flus that you lose your sense of smell and even if it even if there was some new loss Of smell going on. 

 

What? We just say that's a virus. Every time people start to say I've noticed something, that we say it must be a virus. And to be honest, when we were trained as doctors, all of the more experienced doctors used to say to us, if you don't know what's going on with the patient, just say it's a viral illness and you'll probably get better. And, you know, that was a thing that we used to do all the time to try and get the patient out of the room. But it gets more nefarious with these cases like Autumn's with hepatitis C because they're telling her that she needs to take these pharmaceuticals. And they might even say, and if Autumn says, 

 

Well, I don't why do I need to do that? And then the doctor will say, Well, see this study that we did, we did this clinical research, and it shows that 86%, you know, whatever figure, 86% of people um seroconvert after six months of treatment. So they're telling her that you basically get rid of the virus after six months of taking this drug. And now to a patient, that all sounds, okay, that's that's reasonable. Uh that's answered some of my questions. But then, like Autumn said, she thought initially they were talking about detecting viruses in her blood. And she thought, oh, they're measuring the viral load. So they're looking at the blood and saying this is how many viruses per mil. No, they're not.

 

They're just doing their molecular detection tests. So they're doing PCR. And they're saying, how much of these RNA sequences are we detecting? And if they're detecting high concentrations, they're saying she's got this high viral load. And if it's low, low viral load. Now, the reason their clinical studies appear to be valid is that these medications that they put the patients on, they're anti-metabolites. They actually just stop your cells from doing their normal processes. 

 

And so if you're producing certain proteins or genetic sequences, and then you take these medications, of course it will lower them. It will it will lower hundreds of things. Uh, but they're just looking at those particular ones. And that's why they're saying that it's working because the levels are lower. But you can see this is just completely nonsensical because those genetic sequences were not shown to ever come from a virus. 

 

They have just been hand-selected by the virologists and presented to the world as though they do come from a virus. Now they come from clearly these sequences come from human cells. They are produced by human cells. And the levels that I'm producing right now will be different than yours, and they'll be different from Autumn's. And there may be a reason that someone like Autumn's producing more of these genetic sequences. She may be just doing an appropriate reaction to some sort of environmental toxin that she's processing. Or there may be, you know, another reason for that. But it's nothing to do with the virus.

Christian Elliot

Yeah.

Christian Elliot

Well, I I guess I want to point out the some of the listeners may have caught it, but the circular reasoning going on that we have got this protein that we have found in the body, and we know this protein comes from a mermaid, and so now we know mermaids exist because we have a protein from a mermaid or from a flying pig. 

 

Now I now we know pigs really fly because we have a protein from a that's the same ridiculous loop. If I understand you correctly, they don't they haven't proven the existence of the thing. They're just saying we have a piece of the thing that therefore proves its existence. And you're like, could you please show me the flying pig? Like where is the mermaid? Or maybe you just have something from a fish, or maybe you have just a regular thing from a pig. Is that a reasonable summary of what they're doing?

Dr. Mark Bailey

It is. And you know, what confused people, including in the, you know, what we might call the freedom community during the COVID era, about the alleged SARS-CoV-2 entity, was the spike protein. Because people started saying, oh, look, this is an engineered spike protein, therefore there's been a lab leak, or you know, the vaccines making people produce this uh engineered uh spike protein, da da da. No, if you do research into the spike protein, these are just proteins that have been described for, you know, three decades in various experiments. 

 

So you can get mammalian cell lines, you know, or like they use bovine ones, cow ones, they use you can get chicken cell lines, and you can do these experiments with these cultures, and they can break you can break them down in the lab and stuff, and you do detect these entities, which they've called spike proteins just because of the shape that they have. But that does that's nothing to do with a virus. You don't need a virus. All you need is a cell line that makes those kind of proteins, or a cell line that when it breaks down, it results in the production of those uh proteins. 

 

So yeah, I've got no problem. I look back at papers, um, one we've used quite often is from 1990. I think that's the first time a spike protein is fully characterized in terms of they show the genetic sequence plus the protein sequence, the amino acid sequence, you know. And of course, they're calling it a bovine coronavirus. Those of us being objective are just looking at the experiment, going, sure, it's a protein, and you can call it a spike protein, uh, but it's just as part of this cell culture tissue breakdown process that you're doing in your lab. 

 

And uh I think that's what confused a lot of people during the COVID era was that they thought, oh dear, this this is an engineered spike protein, da-da-da-da. Or they looked at patents, you know, there's these various patents you can look up. Um, that uh like the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Ralph Barrack and his team, they they patent various sequences and stuff. I'm not really sure how you do that. I d I didn't think you could patent sequences that are supposedly appearing in nature. 

 

But anyway, they do and and the people started going, hey, this is dodgy guys, they're they're making viruses and they're engineering viruses and all that kind of stuff. And uh for those of us who take the no virus position, there are easily adequate explanations. So, like you say, it just goes into circular reasoning where they say, Oh, we've detected a spike protein, therefore we've detected a coronavirus, and it just goes round and round. And that is the principle of the uh rapid antigen tests, you know, the lateral flow tests. So instead of detecting genetic sequences, they were just reacting to proteins like uh another protein is the nucleocapsid protein. 

 

I don't deny that this thing is found in biological systems, but it's just not been shown to come from a coronavirus. So when you do these tests, they test positive, and then it's just circular reasoning saying, well, the test was positive for the protein, and the protein comes from a virus. And those of us who study this are saying, sorry, where's the paper that shows it comes from a virus? Because we've not seen that paper ever. It does not exist. 

 

So yeah, it's it's an unbelievable story, and as I say, it comes back to the fact that virology invented itself before establishing if these things existed. And now it's just been a giant fraud where everything is made to fit their model, and all of the evidence which doesn't fit the model is just conveniently discarded by them.

Christian Elliot

Yeah, well it's like we're fed the binary option. Either this is a natural virus or it's a man-made one, but there's there's no option C like both of those are fake. And you're saying you neither one of them proved the premise of their the the story they told us. And just because you can find a protein doesn't mean we found an infectious agent. Yes, we may have found somebody's attempt to create something to poison us, but you haven't actually found anything from nature or necessarily viral.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Totally, and you've actually hit it on the head there, Christian, with how the narrative was presented because people think there was some cover-up of the lab leak. No, I've written another paper on this just showing how preposterous that is because by January, February 2020, the lab leak story was everywhere. Millions and millions of views, not censored at all. And wasn't that funny that supposedly it was a big cover-up? But the majority of people in the United States know about the lab leak theory. The majority of them. 

 

So, how's this a cover-up? It's not, but very few people know about the fundamental flaws of virology. So, you know, we have it's interesting to us that, you know, people will say, oh, you know, RFK Jr., he was a whistleblower, he was talking about the lab stuff, da-da-da-da-da that he was really highly censored. Well, everyone in the world knows him. And it's like he's RFK Junior is known by everyone here in New Zealand, so everyone here would know him, I would say, and would know the sort of stuff he puts out there. He he's not censored, you know. 

 

I mean, he's in the the US government now. Um, whereas we know that uh from 2020 onwards, when the no virus stuff was so heavily censored that sometimes my wife Sam would attempt to put a video on YouTube, it would take six to eight seconds for it to be struck down because the algorithm would detect a certain word. So we learned not to say no virus, we just learned to say things like um inconsistencies with the PCR or um problems with the provenance of the genomics. 

 

You'd say something that just wouldn't trigger the no virus stuff, and um, because clearly they did not want, yeah, as you say, there were two narratives. One was that it came from the wet market or the back caves, the other was that it was the lab lake was engineered. But both of those keep people in the contagion narrative and the whole pandemic narrative. When, you know, we could see in 2020 there was no pandemic, there was no new disease, there was no virus. So the people running the scam, they don't care exactly which virus story you believe, as long as you believe one of them.

Christian Elliot

Yep, and waste your energy fighting one of the two battles. So yeah.

Autumn McLees

And one point that I want to make that we usually make at some point in these interviews is we're not saying that people aren't sick or that they aren't experiencing symptoms, right? But we do know that you can know what's um, you don't have to know what's true to know what's not true. 

 

Did I say that right? Um and so we know that the viral narrative has not been scientifically proven. We don't know that these uh these proteins that they're picking up on in the test in my situation and in all the other viral situations that they actually correlate with making someone sick, and they haven't done the proper studies and the place plus placebo groups and controls, etc. to prove these things. So science hasn't been done. They're just making leaping assumptions, and unfortunately, it's um it's in my opinion, very sinister and it's it's a major problem because people are assuming these labels and taking on what they say, and uh it's it's a tragedy.

Christian Elliot

Yeah, well, it's it's in my mind, it's a it's a theft of our curiosity. It truncates the option to look for plus possible causes or other things that could be related to why we get sick, and it shepherds us back into it's option A, it's a wet market, or option B, it's came from a lab accidentally, and just buy into one of those things. 

 

And instead of um getting curious about causes, we're just trained to think in such binary ways. And hopefully we can by the time we're done it today. I think people will be like, oh, but there's so many other possible explanations for why I might not feel well. And the the willingness to explore that's I found it liberating to go, oh the buck does stop with me. Nope, the cavalry's not coming. I don't need a test to know that I don't feel good. I can just start working at my health and I can do things that dependably work since you know dawn of time, maybe. 

 

There are so many of nature's remedies that do so well. So I guess before we leave this testing topic, Mark, since your your background is so much in the research phase, I guess two questions. The first is around just how deeply would you say we should question the entire world of testing? Because that to me is something I run into a lot in my work. I'll have a client that says I I tested positive for COVID three times, or I got the influenza A or influenza B, or I've tested by with this, that, or the other thing. And even in the alternative world, once you kind of step outside the medical loop of symptom identification, and then you're in the trying to find root causes, you you still bump into people, I got a full body scanner, I got this resonance tester, 

 

I've got this other way that we're peeking into the body that's they didn't take some sort of fluid from me, they're just scanning me, and they can detect I have a high viral load. So help me help the listener and myself here in the medical world and in the alternative world, when we when we're testing, what are good questions to ask? When you're looking at a paper that's trying to tease out what's true here, what are you looking for in those tests to say this actually has merit? And what are we not thinking to question about the test?

 

 Because like autumn story is a testament to the weightiness of a proclamation. It's like this paper, this objective test fell out of heaven and told me who I am and clarified reality for me. And very few people step back to think, is this test even worth taking? Is it beyond just this contagion arena? Is that does it apply to tests beyond just looking at infection? Or how how help us think about testing in particular Yeah?

Dr. Mark Bailey

Well, again, Autumn's example is awesome because I remember back to when Autumn first reached out to my wife, Sam, and she said, Is there something I should do about this hepatitis C situation? And Sam basically said something along the lines of the treatment, the cure is never to take one of those tests ever again and do not even forget it. Forget that you've had them. 

 

It's irrelevant to your health situation. So, and that is the case with most tests, unfortunately, particularly in the modern world of allopathy. But what concerns me is that there are a number of practitioners who say that they're natural practitioners or, you know, um, you know, but we would call them probably green allopaths in the sense that they say they're doing holistic and natural stuff, but they're still relying on these same models, including the testing. And they might say, oh yeah, some tests are no good, but there's a whole lot of tests which are useful. We would say the vast majority of tests are of no use whatsoever if you're interested in improving someone's health. And uh they can be highly misleading. And there are certain tests which are valid and have been validated. 

 

A pregnancy test, you know, a urine pregnancy test is is a great test. If a woman is just not sure and but we have a way to test that, you know, because she does the test and then later on we can do an ultrasound. Um I'm not recommending that, but you could. Or, you know, there's a baby that is born and you say, well, hey, that test was highly predictive. 

 

And for us men, virtually every single pregnancy test we try and do, we would not test positive. Or if we went into the garden and took a sample from a tomato and put it on the pregnancy test, it should not be positive, you know. So there are some tests, but we have to remember it is still a test. It is not saying that a woman is pregnant, it is just saying that there is a certain hormone, a protein, that is elevated in this beta HCG. So we we always have to keep in mind what what the test is. But outside of those things, there's there's very, very few tests which are useful. 

 

And probably the worst are the so-called screening ones. Now, screening tests, you know, are the typical ones where you go to see a family doctor who says, Christian, you haven't been here for like 10 years, man. I'm really worried about you.

Christian Elliot

That would be true, actually, yes.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, hopefully 20. Yeah. Um and they say, We we, you know, oh my goodness, and you've reached that age where we've got to check your cholesterol, you know, you we've got to check you for diabetes, we we have to check your blood pressure while you're here. Uh, I'm wondering if we should check your prostate, we should also get a a chest x-ray just to have a look see inside there.

 

And all of these things that they do, which uh are not helpful, it just pulls you into their allopathic paradigm. And the outcomes uh for some of these tests can literally lead to a death sentence, you know, where people just line up for one test after another or they go for various procedures. And um, yeah, so for us, yeah, we when I it's interesting because when I got out of medicine in 2016, the big things I thought were, oh my goodness, I can't prescribe medication anymore. 

 

Because up till that point I could prescribe anything I wanted. And then within weeks I thought, oh my goodness, I don't actually want to prescribe anything. And it was the same with the testing. You know, I went from, hey, I could order all these high-tech tests and blood tests and urine tests and all these types of things. And these days, I don't care at all. There's no tests I'd really be interested in uh in using. And the tests that maybe are useful, like pregnancy tests for people, you can just buy those at the supermarket or at a pharmacy anyway. 

 

You don't need to go and see a doctor. So yeah, I'd say to people, just be extremely careful about buying into those paradigms. Because the the other thing is that they don't necessarily lead to uh therapies that are useful for you. And so, for instance, you might have a particular blood test like a high cholesterol, and they tell you that, well, for for a start, is it high? We don't know that. I mean, maybe for your situation, it's normal and your body is trying to do something with that cholesterol, and that's absolutely fine. You don't care what the um blood level is. 

 

So I would be in that boat where if they tested me and said that my cholesterol was through the roof, I'd say, well, I don't care. It's not going to affect what I do because I live such a healthy lifestyle. I'm not going to change the foods I eat and the exercise that I'm doing and this healthy body weight I'm maintaining, etc. I'm not going to be misled into that paradigm. So you've got all of those sorts of things. And then you've got the even really dangerous stuff like the pathway they tried to take autumn down, where they say that you've got some virus and now you need to be on antiviral medication, you know, which is incredibly dangerous uh to go on, even though they try and claim that it's going to improve your health. So so yeah, it's all of the tests um have some sort of problems. 

 

And while some of them do have utility, I would encourage most people to stay away from them. If you are interested in just working on your own health and following a healthy lifestyle, you shouldn't need to go into that world. It includes the imaging as well. So your X-rays, uh MRIs, uh CTs, etc. There is a place for those things like in trauma, etc. Like somebody has been playing football and maybe they've dislocated a joint or something and they do a quick x-ray and say, Yep, that joint's dislocated. We need to pop it back in. That's all fine. But not to go in and say, 

 

Oh, I don't feel 100%. And, you know, like you say, they end up doing scans all over the body and screening blood tests and stuff. And eventually they find something and it's um it gives them a most inappropriate target.

Christian Elliot

Man, I was prepared for you to have more things on your short list of tests worth taking than a pregnancy test. And I was I've I've I've questioned all of them, like what's what's left that this this profession has to offer? And yeah, it's refreshing that this is coming from a former MD, not from some random coach.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Oh yeah, and Christian, I'd say it's to the point where, you know, sometimes people will recognize us in the street and they'll come up and start wanting to have a quick consult, you know, and we can only be do tell them so much. But I might get some guy going, Hey, look, um, I've got so much back trouble at the moment. And he pulls out his phone and goes, I'll just show you the MRI of my back that the surgeon and I said, Look, does it show a bullet in your back? 

 

No, it doesn't. I said, Does it show a massive fracture or trauma? No. I said, Well, I don't need to see it. And they're really incredulous, going, but don't you want to see the facet joint and what he said about the disc and all this? I said, No. I said it would make no difference to what I would tell you to do from here. So uh yeah. And and I used to be in that world, yeah, where we were studying the MRIs and looking at the blood tests and thinking that we were uh, you know, picking up all these things. But um no, I I can say honestly, we've moved um beyond that. And I'd have to say that the practitioners uh like us, so you know, um Dr. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman, Mark Edmond, the people in the new biology clinic, I think we we all came to that same conclusion. We came from test, test, test with, you know, when people came in to make the diagnosis. And virtually all of us now do not recommend those kind of in any test basically, uh, because it wouldn't change the advice that we give. 

 

And and that is even with cancer. It's you you have to reverse what's caused the cancer, and and you don't get more information by doing MRIs and biopsies and lots of tissue procedures and biochemical markers. That doesn't inform me about what to do next for the person.

Christian Elliot

Wow, you're gonna make a great coach, Mark. This is awesome. Well, yeah, that's that's how I've I've had to think in that container my whole life, whole time doing this work. 20 years of I can't prescribe medicines, I can't prescribe tests. I don't, I have to work with what burdens the body and what helps the body heal. And so I've just been swimming in those waters for so long. But to hear somebody come full circle who had the full toolkit at his disposal and be like, yeah, there's really nothing here I'm gonna use anymore. And moving on, like that, wow, what a um it's just refreshing to hear somebody affirm that I might know something about what I'm doing. So thanks.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Um Yeah, definitely, and and look, we we wouldn't say this if we didn't have skin in the game. And so, for example, quick story during um my wife Sam's last pregnancy, she she's a bit more agreeable than me, and the practitioners wanted to do some blood tests, and I said to her, don't get any blood tests, not while you're pregnant, because they, you know, they they'll find something. And firstly, they tell her she's got diabetes, you know.

Christian Elliot

Right.

Dr. Mark Bailey

And we're like, no, that's impossible. Sam's so healthy, she's you know, in such good shape, and her diet's fantastic, and they're like, no, no, no. And you know, they started telling her all these warnings about our our son was going to have all these problems and stuff potentially with the the her diabetes. And Sam, it was funny because Sam said this is so much rubbish that she actually we had a uh blood glucose meter at home that um someone had given us, and Sam was just going, watch this, and she was just testing it over about a week, going, 

 

That that's not diabetes. It was based on their test in the lab, but you know, she could do capillary blood tests during the day and everything was completely normal. And in some ways, I wouldn't worry anyway, because uh, you know, maybe during pregnancy the sugars need to run a little higher or something, the body's the body's doing something correctly. 

 

And then then they said, Oh, no, you've got massive thyroid problems, your tests are all over the show, and she needed to come in for scans and biopsies and stuff. She honestly had the doctors from the hospital were calling her on the phone and arguing with her about how how dangerous it was that she was not coming in. And of course, she just said, no, the the solution to this problem is no more testing. And um, she didn't, she never, that was like, you know, four or five years ago. So no problems have manifest, despite the fact she was told that she had gestational diabetes and massive thyroid problems. 

 

Now, and we understand, like, for most people, if they were in that position and the uh obstetricians and so forth are telling people, hey, look, you're putting your baby at such risk here. This is you need to be on medications, you need to be tested, etc. You can understand how most people go along with that. And it was only because, you know, we we used to be in that paradigm, but have done our own research and now know that the it's a false paradigm, that you don't respond to these tests. 

 

And I as Audum has said as well, we're not saying that people don't get sick and you have to take that seriously, but we're saying do not treat tests. If they show you a test and say, oh my goodness, and give you some fear narrative and you're not unwell, be very skeptical of what they're telling you.

Christian Elliot

Yeah.

Autumn McLees

Well, yeah, and the whole system is driven so much on fear. And I am such a big advocate of do not make decisions based on fear. Stop and research, no matter what it is you're diagnosed with and how scary it is. There is no reason to make quick, rash decisions. Um, stop and look at the complete other side of the coin and what science actually shows, which is all hidden in plain sight.

Christian Elliot

Yeah. What was it that broke the fear spell for you, Autumn? Was it just education? Is that the main thing that did it?

Autumn McLees

That's a good question. I would say um, first of all, that that first scenario where I saw my body heal, I actually experienced it healing by me getting back to the foundational things, which is something that I want to leave everyone with. You know, sometimes we can go through these topics and people people can feel so like, okay, well, I feel more aware and awake, but like now I feel disempowered because it's like, well, what am I supposed to do when I'm unhealthy? 

 

And it's getting back to the basic things of, you know, what you eat, think, eat, think, breathe, move, pray, and relate, like all those areas evaluate them. And those are the areas that we don't always want to do the hard work, you know, and delve into and be accountable to, you know, and um and and change our lifestyle with, but those are the things that matter, and that's what brings that's a foundation for health. But yeah, back to the fear, I mean, you know, my faith and just knowing that medication is not health, a prescription is not health. 

 

So to give me a medication and claim it's all gonna be okay, no, it's not because there's side effects and there's always risks, it's a trade-off. And so the person needs to understand that trade-off. And we, you know, don't look as much as we should into the allopathic medicine side and what those risks are. I don't know how many people actually pull out the uh the paperwork of that medication and look at what they're signing themselves up for. Um and then how many people actually do the hard work and the digging through the research and looking at the holistic perspectives and what the doctors are saying, like Dr. Bailey here and so many others. Um, this movement is growing, by the way. 

 

You're gonna see and hear more and more about this viral narrative. I believe it's the next wave of awareness and health. And praise God for that, because people need to not be run by fear any longer. You need to take time and research, um, trust the Lord, but look at really truly what's there because science has never been a hundred percent and uh it never will be. And certainly we know now it's so much of it as pseudoscience that we're not even doing science as we discovered here today. So more um, more empowerment to those of you to do to get involved and take charge of your own health journey.

Christian Elliot

Right on. Okay. Well, I got one question before I I want to get to the like specificity of some things that people would say, yeah, but what about this? I've got a few of those for you. But before we get to that, Mark, um I guess confirm or upgrade my perspective on this. How much do is the average medical doctor trained at reading scientific papers? Is that part of medical school training? Like, or is that something they're not trained to do?

Dr. Mark Bailey

I would say most of them definitely not trained to do. They are trained to just follow dogma. And you have to understand that medicine is amongst the most highly regulated industries in the world, and there's a a huge amount of punishment for doctors who do not tow the line. And so people don't realize that. And different countries have different degrees of control, but in almost every country Western country in the world, the regulators uh stamp down on anyone questioning narratives. So, yeah, particular landmines are things like vaccines. 

 

Uh, pretty much no doctors are allowed to question vaccines at all. Uh cancer uh treatments is another one. So if you start pointing out that chemotherapy is useless and dangerous, um, that's another invitation to lose your license, essentially. So there are various things and also it seems now, like Autumn said, the no virus stuff, people are becoming far more aware of this. Uh so they're cracking down on that as well. So anyone making claims that the viruses don't exist or have not been shown to exist or PCR is not a valid diagnostic test, they're starting to crack down on that. 

 

So you you have to keep in mind that these it it's controlled, most doctors are so terrified of losing their incomes. And so they're not going to risk uh going out on what they perceive as a limb. And it's easier for them just to go along with the narratives. And to be honest, when I was trained, we were not encouraged to look outside of the publications that came to us via the medico-pharmaceutical industry. We were not told that the journals were essentially all controlled by the pharmaceutical empire, that there's nothing in there which is not carefully contrived narratives, that even these slogans and stuff that start appearing in medicine and these themes are actually just concoctions from the medico-pharma uh industry. 

 

And uh Peter Gotcha's written a great book, um uh, you know, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime about how the pharmaceutical empire works and how it basically educates doctors uh into this dogma and they're not uh encouraged to question anything. So yeah, I'd say to people, be extremely careful when it comes to talking to a doctor in the mainstream system, expecting them to really know what's going on. It's it's unlikely. 

 

And I can say that even though I was highly skeptical during my time inside the system and identified a number of problems, it was really just the tip of the iceberg compared to what I subsequently found out after leaving the system. And um, you know, I think it's we we call it uh, you know, it's known as Russell conjugation, which is when a doctor considers what the penalty will be or what the cost will be to saying something. And for most of them, they'll say it's not worth it because I'll lose my clinic, I'll lose my practice, I'll lose my income, and they they simply won't do it. They've got too much invested. I think that's a bad attitude because you you should tell the truth regardless, and you have to be prepared that, yep, there may be some costs, uh, but otherwise you're you're propagating harm. 

 

But I I also believe, too, that most doctors just they just don't want to know. They just rather think that they're working really hard. And most of them, look, we're not saying they don't work hard. Doctors are are a hard-working group of people. They do long hours, they spend a lot of time, you know, writing notes and talking to people and being in hospitals and stuff. There's no doubt that they do big hours and they work hard. It's just that they're naive to the amount of damage that they're doing and the fact that they are not practicing uh with scientific principles, that they've been and for us it was a big thing to accept for both Sam and myself and and other doctors like us to come out of it and say, okay, we were tracked. 

 

And and also that we were involved in some bad practices, that we shouldn't have prescribed medications in most cases and etc. It's uh something you just have to come to terms with. But yeah, back to your question. No, doctors are not trained. I don't think most of them even seem to know what the scientific method is, because they simply read a headline of a paper, a scientific paper, and then cite it as though, you know, they'll say hepatitis C virus isolated, and then they'll go, Wow, look at that. It's true. Yeah. They don't look at the methods and go, what's this? This is just a cell culture soup. This is just uh this is not a scientific experiment. They don't do that, no.

Christian Elliot

Or who's funding this or anything like that? That's just not a I I even found in. Tell me if this, if my lived experience isn't as much reality, and but my lived experience is most doctors don't read the package insert for any medication, and none of them could list the ingredients in a vaccine. They just are clueless to that. Is that am I making that up or is that accurate?

Dr. Mark Bailey

It's true. And although there is time that you learn about pharmaceuticals, obviously, in medical school, a lot of it is focused on things like dose rates, uh interactions, you know, monitoring, etc. Uh, you're not really aware of you are aware of what they call side effects, but I mean they are basically the effects of the drug. And yeah, vaccines is a classic one. 

 

Now, thankfully I can say I had very little to do with vaccines in my practicing career. It just wasn't part of the specialties I was in. But if you would have asked me back in those days, what was in a vaccine, or how was this thing made, or how much aluminium was in each dose, I would be totally clueless. And that is like the majority of doctors. So your average family doctor or pediatrician, look at the look on their face. 

 

If someone says to them, Hey, doctor, um, just with the childhood schedule you're recommending here, how much aluminium will my child end up getting with if they take all of these vaccines? The doctor will just look at you blankly and say, Well, you know, this is the CDC's recommendations, or it's all been checked. They they won't have a clue. Like they literally won't.

Christian Elliot

Wow.

Christian Elliot

Okay. Well, that that confirms a suspicion I had, or that it seems to be when I cause a client will ask me about a medication or the side effects. I'm like, I'm not I haven't studied those, but I can pull up the package insert and read it. I can see what the manufacturer says and I don't know. That's not hard to do. And here's some questions you might ask your doctor, and they're like, the doctors don't appreciate the question typically. 

 

They're not interested in that. And if you ask when I what if if these ingredients were in my food, the ones that are in the vaccine, this would probably be not fit for human consumption, but it's okay to puncture me with it and I help me understand why I think they're it's to your point. They're like, well, but the CDC says they just regurgitate talking points, they don't know how to read journals or evaluate studies. And that's essentially where we found ourselves. When the Flexner that report in 1910, they divorced doctors from researchers. It's just like that transference of knowing what you're prescribing or understanding the research left the training, it sounds like I know.

Dr. Mark Bailey

It's unbelievable. And it um in some ways it helped me just to get to a new way of thinking once I'd exited medicine. And that is thinking, what is a pharmaceutical? It's a petrochemical compound, in typically. And I should point out to the audience here, there are some instances where medications are life-saving. So type 1 diabetes, I I don't know how to fix that problem, like naturally. 

 

So they need the insulin, which is now synthetic. Uh, once upon a time it was, you know, derived from pigs and that, but now they can manufacture it. That person needs, and you would call the insulin a pharmaceutical, I guess, even though it's just mimicking something that our body produces. Most pharmaceuticals are not of that nature at all. They are petrochemical compounds that were invented and then tested on animals and then humans to see what they did. 

 

And then they tell you a narrative, like, oh, this is an antihypertensive, or this is a medication, you know, to help with type 2 diabetes, you know, the oral medications they take. Now, the the way a pharmaceutical works to your body, I don't care what the companies say that the thing is doing, because they'll make up a story and they'll say it targets this receptor or it targets the the particular cells in the liver or whatever. No, that's not how it works. What happens is that the moment you ingest the chemical, your body recognizes it as foreign and not supposed to be there, and it will just act as quickly and as effectively as it can to get that out of its system. 

 

All right. Now, sometimes that might have side effects, like it might lower your blood pressure or do something to your blood sugar. It's not because the medication's designed to do that, it's because your body's trying to get rid of it and it's reacting in particular ways, and then they're making up the backstory afterwards.

Christian Elliot

Nobody has if I heard you correctly, the same problem that happened with virology, they just made they assumed they were correct and went forward with it. They in with drugs, they just make up a chemical, put it in the body, see what it does, and then then they find the story later and tell oh, this is what it it has this the side effect, they wouldn't say that, but it has this effect, and therefore we can override your body's processes this way for a short period of time. And now we can come up with a disease name. Is that did I capture that?

Dr. Mark Bailey

It's this is it, this is the scam. And you look at all of the major drugs that have ever come out, they didn't design them that way. They, you know, they get clues later on because they'll get a certain class of drug, like say, take the anti-inflammatories, and then they might make a compound that's similar, but that was only because they found the first one through this just trial and error process of just inventing compounds. 

 

First they test them on lower animals and make sure they don't kill them outright. And if they do, they don't persist with that one. And then if the animal survives, then they test it on a bigger animal, and then eventually humans, and then they just see what happens. And, you know, this was why drugs like Viagra came about. That was supposed to be for a heart medication. And but then all the men started saying, Hey, um, and I don't know about the heart stuff, but I've noticed something else going on, um, you know, and they were like, Oh wow, yeah, this is a um a drug that men can use, you know. Um completely, they did not design it like that. 

 

It was just a complete, you know, trial and error process, unexpected. And as I say, nobody has a pharmaceutical deficiency. So the moment you put those things in your mouth or inject them, your body just needs to get rid of them. Some are very dangerous because your body struggles to get rid of, particularly the injectable ones in the form of vaccines. So uh in some ways, yeah, what you said maybe a vaccine's not fit for food, but you'd be better off swallowing the thing if it's got aluminium in it, because if you swallow aluminium, 95 to 99% will pass out of your system. 

 

So it'll just pass out in in the bowel or in the urine. When you inject aluminium, 90 plus percent is staying in the body, unfortunately. It doesn't get out, and um, it can only really go to two places. One is the brain and one is the bone. And, you know, that's why researchers in that area are saying, what why are we getting so many problems with these neurological conditions in old people, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc., dementia. Uh, why are we getting all these blood cancers and marrow cancers and young people, etc.? And there's this big elephant in the room. 

 

So, yeah, but all of these things, uh, in general, your body is just trying to eject. And for me, it was this paradigm change of going, oh my goodness, the there's no these stories they told us about cell receptors and fancy um intracellular communication mechanisms were all just drug company spin. They made this stuff up, and then they, you know, told the doctors who then just parrot these stories and say to the patient, oh, this is a great new antihypertensive because it acts on this receptor and it doesn't interfere with this so much. 

 

So we're really happy with it. No, it's just another poison, another petrochemical that your body has to get rid of. And that's the concern, say that uh autumn identified. She's like, on one hand, they're telling her that there's some problem with her liver, that it's not working properly, that it's been invaded by a virus, and then they're saying, take this medication, this petrochemication. Chemical compound that your liver needs to process, you know.

Christian Elliot

That will be damaging to your liver. So yeah.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah. I mean, they may as well say to her, you know, drink a couple of bottles of wine at the same time just to really get your liver going. I mean, yeah.

Autumn McLees

Make it make sense.

Christian Elliot

Right. Okay. Well, I don't want to um take too much of you guys' time out. So, but I want to tease people to go to your either of your sites, really. But um, you and your wife, Mark, have done a bang up job of kind of virus by virus or contagion by contagion, or story by story, if you will, looking specifically at what we're typically told this particular virus or these particular symptoms, and therefore we know we know the pigs fly. 

 

So I don't we're not, we're not gonna have time to go through all of them, obviously, because there's so many and there's a lot of research in it. But what I as I thought about how to kind of wet people's appetite for this, I realize there's kind of two categories. There's the generic symptoms, which are things like COVID, which is all the same symptoms. It's knowledge that it's vomiting, it's diarrhea, it's it's sweating, it's you know, muscle aches, it's all the same stuff, which is very easy to go. There's nothing specific about this. 

 

And you would even put things like mosquito-borne illnesses or even ticks or insect bites in a category like that. There's there's so many different symptoms to be able to say this one virus or this one label, we now we know it's malaria, it's dengue, it's yellow fever, it's whatever. It's just the the bridge is so far to cross. It's it's easier to just go, let's let's explore other options here for what might be causing this. So, is there anything in the generic world that you want to comment on of this handful that I mentioned that are just a way people could frame and have a different perspective on these generalized illnesses that kind of all seem to have the same symptoms?

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, well, I think firstly, like you've probably identified, people will start saying, Well, what about chicken pox? What about herpes? And people start thinking of a particular example, and it may be their own experience or an experience that their family had. So if that's the case, um one thing people can do is just to come to our website, drsambailey.com, just use the search function and look up the specific question that you had, because it's likely we've covered it. 

 

And because we've been asked over the years, well, what about rabies? You know, the rabid dogs that bite people, or, you know, well, what about herpes? Because, you know, I had this bad experience when I was young and all that kind of stuff. And we we cover all of those things, those. And Sam said to me a long time ago, she said, I think we're gonna have to go through every single virus one by one. I was like, well, that's a lot, and we've been through a lot, but it seems to help people to specifically cover what exactly are these entities. 

 

But yeah, look, really, it comes back to thinking, first of all, I think people should think, isn't this the good news that there are not viruses for a start? Instead of hold trying to hold on to it and saying like you're trying to defend it, you know, just say, well, this could be really good. Uh this this sounds like something positive. And the second thing I always tell people is is not to outsource your health. So don't think that there's this industry out there that has your health as its highest goal, because it doesn't. There is nothing like that in existence. There's there's only you and your wish to look after yourself and your family. 

 

So yeah, do not underestimate your own ability to influence your your health on a day-to-day kind of basis. But yeah, when it comes to and then the big questions like, well, what about the whole notion of contagion? And we've certainly dealt with that a number of times. But I'd also say there are fantastic books out there, like Daniel Reuter's Can You Catch a Cold. Over 200 contagion studies, uh, human contagion studies are analyzed, and the results are not what people expect. And it's certainly not the stuff that we were taught in medical school. 

 

So yeah, I just say to people, just be be prepared to turn the stone over and look at examples like myself and my wife and autumn. We all came from that mainstream paradigm once upon a time where we thought there were viruses and we thought there were tests for viruses, and we thought there were specific viral illnesses, and people can see we've completely moved on from that paradigm because we realized it was it didn't stack up scientifically.

Christian Elliot

Yeah. Okay, well, that hopefully that wets your appetite. So I I'll I'll put some thoughts in my introduction to this episode about ones that jumped out to me. Or your wife even had a brilliant comment on one of the videos I watched of her about she just said kids or babies only have so many detox options or de ways that their body pushes things out, which puts a whole different I started connecting all sorts of dots that I'll mention. Um, you guys, if you're listening, you've already heard that. But the way that the our bodies grow and milestones of what it can do is a fascinating way to explore what are some of these childhood diseases that we get wrapped around the axle for and what other ways could we handle those. 

 

But um you also made a comment, Mark, and we'll kind of wrap up with this that um you would even say bacteria has not been shown to cause as a contagion that can cause disease, which makes me well, what about like food poisoning? Or what about like here in Florida in Florida, we have what I call red tide every summer. There's a few days where you don't go in the ocean because there's a flesh-eating bacteria, and you go and you kind of feel like you got hit by a truck. 

 

So what that I guess what that implies though is if bacteria is not disease causing why in the world are we taking antibiotics? Like what would we do instead? So finish up here with the idea that okay, if we got we've covered viruses, but what if bacteria doesn't cause disease and now we've got a new category? So give people some, you know, your your three-minute sound bite on antibiotics and what we may not think of when we go to pull that leverage.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, well, firstly, bacteria have never been shown to cause disease. Now, the Cox postulates were formulated in the 1880s and they were scientific. And but the problem was they could never get past the postulates because the bacteria, yep, they could be found in people with disease, specific diseases, but they were also found in other people. So these bacteria are on us and in us all the time. They are just part of our ecosystem. Their numbers may change depending on changes in our terrain. Like if our tissue starts to get devitalized and break down, the bacteria may increase in numbers, but that doesn't mean that they're the cause of any illness. And certainly all of those initial experiments they did, they were disproven. 

 

So even these famous ones like cholera, they would get guys like Max von Pettinghoefer at the time, he would get a whole vial of the stuff, a whole cupful of uh the cholera bacteria, and swallow it in front of the audience. And it was a pure culture. That was fine. Because what the mistake was made at the time was that people that drank sewer water would get incredibly sick. And this comes back to your food poisoning example, and then they would put it under the microscope and say, Well, look at this, there's so many bacteria swimming around in there, they must be the cause of the problem. No, the problem is the toxic water, the waste water that has products, you know, breakdown products that are toxic to us. 

 

Yeah, because we get this ridiculous thing where people say, Well, Baileys, if you don't believe in bacteria, I'd like to see you eat some cow poo or sheep poo or something. No, we're not going to do that because it's a waste product that's been excreted uh from an animal, you know. Now, if somebody managed to get the bacteria off and separate it from the poo, I would happily uh ingest those bacteria because they're not going to do anything. We know that from all of the studies that they've already done, that taking pure cultures of bacteria does not cause disease. 

 

Outside of ingesting ridiculous quantities. So I wouldn't advise people to drink a liter of a bacterial culture. I mean, that's just it's as stupid as drinking like, you know, a liter of vodka or a liter of something else. You just don't ingest things in those kind of crazy volumes. But no, so the reason that people get sick from those things, it's like people will say, oh, we detected E. coli in the water, therefore the E. coli could make you sick. Don't worry about the E. coli. 

 

Worry about why the E. coli is in the water, because it it has to have a food source. It has to have something it's being nourished from. What it is being nourished from is not going to nourish us. It's going to be toxic to us. So don't blame the bacteria. Antibiotics, one of the biggest scams in the history of medicine. And we have a specific video addressing this where we didn't even know this when we started that research, but we looked up, we thought, well, there must be some pivotal papers, maybe from the World War II era when the antibiotics were starting to become more common, or something where antibiotics were shown to be life-saving. Did not find any papers whatsoever, including in these most extreme cases of so-called bacterial sepsis. 

 

We could not find a scientific paper that showed that antibiotics have saved anyone in that fashion. We're not saying that antibiotics don't do anything. So, for instance, you might see a dermatologist prescribing antibiotics for inflammatory skin diseases. It has nothing to do with antibacterial properties and everything to do with anti-inflammatory properties. So some antibiotics also are anti-inflammatories, and that's why they appear to work for certain conditions, because they suppress inflammation. Another one, urinary tract infections, women will say, Well, I took the antibiotics and felt better within hours. 

 

Yep, that's because of the anti-inflammatory uh properties and because it concentrates in the bladder so quickly. Um but again, it is not the bacteria that cause the problem in the first place. So, yeah, I mean, it's the war on germs. It's a complete fallacy, it's a complete farce, and nobody should ever uh take antibiotics that they're not useful to our health and can cause a whole myriad of problems.

Autumn McLees

My favorite is the strep bacteria and what I've learned with that. It's like, you know, the sh the strep bacteria show up to help remediate whatever traumas happened in the throat. And that's like the same correlation as like blaming firefighters that show up to a fire, saying that they caused the fire. They're there to help. And same with bacteria.

Christian Elliot

Yeah.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, and we're not we're not saying sometimes the bacteria don't make their own mess, the same way that if your house is on fire, the firefighters might hit the door with the axe and spray some water around. Now, you don't say, well, the firefighters caused all the damage. You say, well, they did cause some damage, but they were limiting even worse damage to the rest of the house, you know.

Christian Elliot

That's a good metaphor. I like that. You guys are full of a lot of amazing little nuggets. It's so fun to talk to you.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Okay, well, well, we've we've been hit with every single but what about, but what if you're Yeah, I I know because I've searched your site looking for individual ones.

Christian Elliot

Like, what about this? And sure enough, there there's a you take the research, run it to ground, and what does it say? And what I I part of why I wanted that research segment on here is just so people can say there is a way to find these answers. And if we will look deeply at how a study was designed, if we will understand what it was and was not done, we can let go of this false binary again if it's a wet market or it's a bioweapon. Like maybe it was neither. 

 

Maybe that whole construct was given to us to get us to stay in a container, and you just blew the doors off the entire container very well. And it's been fun to hear just the journey you both went on to get there. And I can hear the passion and the freedom, I guess, in your voice as you talk about where you've come to. So I guess both of you give give the listener kind of their their your final parting shot on what encouragement would you want to leave them with? And autumn, we'll start with you. Like, what have you um your journey? You can even update us on maybe where you are if you want to, but what are you most excited about, or where do you feel most liber liberated? What do you hope people take away from this conversation?

Autumn McLees

Well, I am currently supporting my body, seeing um an incredible osteopath, eating clean, you know, being mindful of all the things. And, you know, the one thing I want people to know is that your body was made to heal. You know, like Mark said, don't outsource your health, especially on blind trust and this pseudoscience. Get curious about your health. 

 

Understand that symptoms are your body's attempt to up and overcome and to heal. Uh, lean into those, get curious about those. A diagnosis is information, not an identity. And uh your body is not broken, broken, it's just communicating. So, you know, stop treating it like it's the enemy and start supporting, start supporting it. Healing is possible. And um, yeah, I hope my story encourages many more to actually stop and think. Don't just jump to a medication, but actually start to look at the other side of things and what is possible.

Christian Elliot

Love it. Thank you. Okay, Mark, what's what are your parting thoughts?

Dr. Mark Bailey

First of all, ignore anything in the corporate media in general. It's not useful. We we call those marketing funnels. Those organizations are controlled by the people that control these overall narratives and they want to channel things into a certain direction. So if there are headlines about influenza, COVID-19, measles, all this kind of stuff, you can safely ignore them because they are trying to pull you into a fair narrative and get you to behave in a certain way. What will determine your health is not going to see a doctor once a year and having a whole lot of tests, etc., and listening to the doctor speak to you for five or ten minutes. 

 

What is going to determine your health is the decisions that you make every single day for yourself and your family. So all of the things that go in your mouth that you eat, the water source uh that you have, the exercise that you do, the healthiness of your home, the workplace you are in, all of these things, um, you know, uh whether your environment's polluted or not, if you live in a city, they're going to be the things that determine your health. It's all these little things that you can do moment to moment. And just think, is this in my interest or is this not in my interest? 

 

You do not need a medical degree or a degree in pharmacology or anything like that. You don't need a PhD, you don't need any of these things. You just need a little modicum of common sense and trust in yourself and nature that uh you can you can do this and don't outsource your health. It's it's right there in front of you for the taking.

Christian Elliot

I love it. Okay. I'll do a hearty amen to both of those. So um give your give our listeners a chance to know where to find you, how to follow your work, any other things you want them to know about how to keep tabs on what you're doing.

Autumn McLees

Well, um, you can find me on most all social media platforms at autumn.mclees. I also have uh the podcast No Better Do Better that comes out every Wednesday where we challenge conventional norms and confront root causes holistically. Yeah, but uh I also currently have, well, by the time this airs, it will probably be a replay option. So I'll be sure to give that to you, Christian. Great. 

 

But we have an event surrounding the topic of challenging germ and viral theory. Um it's an event called The Truth About Sickness. Dr. Sam and Mark Bailey had a full plate at the time and they weren't able to join, otherwise, they would be a part of it. But some of the doctors that was mentioned here in this interview, Dr. Cowan and Kaufman, um, they're in there talking about more about germs and the modern establishment, the modern establishment of allopathic medicine. And you know, just a lot of what we've shared here today uh will be a bit more uh talked about in that in that summit. So I can pass along a link for a replay option. But um yeah, that's at autumnclees.com and uh I have some free uh consults and things that I do to connect with people and help brainstorm where they're at in their health journey and uh provide them some encouragement.

Christian Elliot

So okay, Mark, what about you?

Dr. Mark Bailey

Yeah, you can find all the work from uh myself and my wife Sam at drsambailey.com. So D-R-S-A-M-B-A-I-L-E-Y.com. We put out so much free stuff, uh, as you probably know. So there's literally hundreds of videos, there's articles that you can download for free, uh essays that we've written. 

 

We do have books as well, but as I say, vast majority of our content is free. People can go to the website, just use the search bar, look up these topics. We've covered hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of topics, so it's likely that we may have answered your question at least partially in the past. And we're always keen to hear from more people to cover areas which we haven't uh looked into yet.

Christian Elliot

Nice. Okay. Well, thank you both so much for this conversation. It's been a delight. I've wanted to cover this topic for a long time, and I don't know two better people to cover it with. So thank you for being here.

Autumn McLees

Thanks for having us, Christian.

Dr. Mark Bailey

Thank you so much, Christian.