They're Doing It Again

Added: 2026-05-14

[00:00:00]After a brief restbite, the CO 19 narrative is back in the news with headlines such as Majestic Princess cruise ship passengers disembark in Sydney after mass CO outbreak. The subtitle stated that it was the biggest single outbreak since the Ruby Princess disaster of 2020 comes amid a wave of cases across Australia. For many of us, this invokes a sense of deja vu. The Ruby Princess was alleged to have brought CO 19 to Australia in March 2020. And prior to that, the infamous Diamond Princess supposedly had one of the first ever outbreaks of CO 19. Let's go back in time to take a look at what actually happened on the Diamond Princess. It's a preposterous story that helped launch the CO 19 production that continues to fool both the mainstream and many so-called health freedom fighters. I'll also explain why those promulgating fairy tales about viruses and lab leaks are going to inadvertedly bring upon themselves a much worse situation in the future.

[00:01:08]Soon we'll be making the love promises something.

[00:01:21]In 2020, one of the biggest stories used to launch the phony CO 19 narrative was the Diamond Princess. Wikipedia dedicates an extensive entry to the story of the cruise ship that departed from the port of Yokohama on 20th of January 2020, reportedly with 2,666 passengers and 1,045 crew members on board. It could be chance, but those of you that follow numerology will find the number of reported passengers on board a tad spooky. The entry goes on to state that an 80-year-old passenger from Hong Kong, China, had embarked in Yokohama on 20th of January. He had been in Shenen, Guong Province, China on the 10th of January, then returned to Hong Kong and flew to Tokyo on the 17th of January to board the ship. He developed a cough on the 19th of January, but he went on board. There you have it, folks. The narrator wants to impress that man with cough boards ship. What was he thinking?

[00:02:24]This is the kind of nonsense they love to hype up. Never mind the fact that no respiratory disease has been shown to pass between humans in history. That includes the Rosinau experiments in 1918, which failed to transmit one case of the Spanish flu. and every failed attempt to transmit alleged influenza type illnesses since that time. The story continues. On the 1st of February, the ship called at Naha Port in Okinawa and was quarantined. On the same day, the 80-year-old man who disembarked in Hong Kong 6 days earlier tested positive for CO 19. Over the next few days, the cruise ship had shows and dance parties as usual, and also continued to open public facilities that attract large crowds, including fitness clubs, theaters, casinos, bars, and buffet style restaurants. The Diamond Princess was then quarantined near Yokohama Port and they reported that on the 4th of February, tests revealed infections of 10 out of 31 people tested. The authorities immediately decided to isolate all passengers on board for 14 days. On the 7th of February, the total number of people on board with confirmed SARS COV 2 infections grew to 61. The amount of unpacking we have to do here is now significant. They have introduced the terms CO 19 supposedly a new disease entity infection implying that something is transmitting and SARS COV 2 a claimed virus particle that can infect humans and cause the disease entity CO 19.

[00:04:03]Equally crucial was the claim that they had a test that could diagnose all of these things. The entire affair was a fraud because there was no new illness.

[00:04:13]It was simply the new PCR quote test that generated the case numbers and made it seem real to the vast majority of the public. Many people still believe it to this day. At that time, the tests in use were PCR. These days, we have rapid antigen tests as well, which are also purported surrogate tests for the quote virus, and they are being used equally faciously. Instead of target quote viral genetic sequences with the PCR, the RAT is supposed to react with equally mislabeled quote viral proteins. It's time for a flashback to a video I made almost 2 years ago now. It's called CO 19 behind the PCR curtain and it outlines how a test that was never clinically validated for anything was being used to perpetuate a scam demic.

[00:05:04]The purpose of using tests in clinical medicine is to distinguish between having or not having a particular condition or disease. For example, is a patient with chest pain having or not having a heart attack? Is a woman who missed her period pregnant or not? But a test and a condition are not the same thing. I've never had a woman come into my clinic and say, "I think I might be positive for pregnancy." She either has a positive or negative pregnancy test and her condition is either pregnant or not pregnant. All tests detect something. Let's call it the object of interest. And most go further and determine how much. For example, we may check the blood concentrations of glucose and cholesterol. These are direct tests, meaning the object of interest is the test. But there are many indirect tests where what is being measured is a reliable surrogate for the object of interest. For example, when you have a heart attack, a doctor will measure an enzyme that leaks from your damaged heart muscle cell rather than chopping out a piece of your heart muscle to examine it under a microscope.

[00:06:10]Some tests, such as home pregnancy tests, are classified as positive or negative. Pregnancy tests become positive at a certain threshold of hormone being detected in the urine which have been reliably established over a long period of time. We use indirect tests because they are simple, safe, quick, and cheap. But indirect tests have a caveat before they are introduced into routine clinical practice with real patients. It is absolutely essential to determine how well they match the object of interest.

[00:06:43]There are longestablished scientific methods for doing this. Obviously, this involves evaluating the test against the object of interest whose presence or absence is determined independently of the test. So, now that we've established the rules, let's get into CO 19. The mainstream theory is that a new virus called SARS KB2 is the cause of a new disease called CO 19. The test for SARS KB2 is not for the whole virus, the complete subllight microscopic particle itself. Perhaps most familiar is this computerenerated image we see on the news. The test is supposed to detect a 1% fragment of an RNA molecule, its genome, said to reside inside the virus particle. Based on its detection, a person is deemed infected with the virus SARS KB2 because this tiny fragment is regarded as de facto for 100% of the virus's RNA. It could be seen as finding a horse like here as evidence of the horse itself. This is problematic for three reasons. First, while there are many papers revealing the existence of the viral RNA and the presence of coronavirus like particles on electron microraphs, there are none proving that the RNA comes from inside those particles. In fact, there is now a 225,000 euro prize for proof of isolation of the virus and its contained genome.

[00:08:07]Second, because no test is 100% reliable, the RNA detected by the PCR may not be the 1% of the viral genome.

[00:08:16]Third, since there are no reports of RTPCR evaluated against the virus itself, no one knows how many people who test positive for the virus are actually infected with the virus. It's like we've found the horse here, but can't say anything about the horse or the jockey.

[00:08:33]Not a good situation, but this is what happens when scientists, for whatever reasons, cut corners and ignore the basics for establishing test parameters.

[00:08:42]The detonator for the worldwide explosion of so-called CO9 PCR testing was the Corman DST group paper published on 23rd of January 2020. Incredibly, the paper was accepted for publication within 24 hours of submission, and several authors failed to declare their financial conflicts of interest with a commercial PCR test lab. Also, somewhat unusually, version 1.0 of the paper protocol appeared on the WHO website 9 days before the paper was even accepted for publication. But the Corman DSTS paper was just a lab study, meaning it didn't establish the validity of using the test in the real world. No evidence was provided about how a positive test related to the condition of CO 19. As I've discussed in previous videos, this wasn't the only problem with this paper.

[00:09:31]And on the 26th of November 2020, a consortium of health professionals and scientists sent a retraction request letter to Euro Surveillance outlining their multiple concerns. I believe they are still awaiting a response. Back in January 2020, however, it was too late and a test that had no track record was promoted to the world as the best way to diagnose CO 19. When the mainstream media and government scientists started telling the public that the CO 19 PCR tests were 95% or 99% accurate, it was not made clear to the public what that actually meant. In New Zealand, for instance, the Ministry of Health website stated, and this is in February 2021, that a recent laboratory study found that different CO 19 testing kits correctly detected CO 19 in samples more than 95% and frequently 100% of the time. This statement is problematic for many reasons, including confusing CO 19, the condition, with SARS KB2, the alleged virus. The RTPCR does not test for CO 19 in samples and if correctly detected means accuracy, the latter cannot be determined without first evaluating the true positive and true negative rates of the RNA test for infection with SARS KV2. But this has never been established. What is detected in a sample is not CO 19. What is detected is a small piece of RNA. So it seems likely that the Ministry of Health has confused the analytical specificity of the test with its diagnostic specificity for the condition.

[00:11:07]Analytical specificity in this case is how well the test can accurately detect a target RNA sequence. So if a SARS KB2 RTPCR kit has 100% analytical specificity, it tells you that it never picks up the wrong RNA molecule. But you can't get too excited because that's like saying that your blood glucose test never picks up your blood cholesterol.

[00:11:30]What we need to know is the diagnostic specificity, which is the probability that the test will be negative when the condition is not present. For example, a pregnancy test that has 100% diagnostic specificity would mean we expect all non-pregant women to test negative.

[00:11:47]Therefore, even if a SARS KB2 RTPCR kit has 100% analytical specificity, it is still meaningless as a test for viral infection without proof of the diagnostic specificity determined against the virus. And this has never been established at all. It has been amazing to see in recent times that some veriologists have turned into chemists under the spell of PCR. I was stunned to hear Australian professor of verology Bill Rollinsson make the following statement last year on a broadcast.

[00:12:18]>> With basic science and improving diagnostics and the ability to sense a molecule and after all a virus is just a piece of RNA molecule.

[00:12:29]>> Interestingly, after he made the statement, none of the panel of experts joining him on the broadcast even called him out on this. Maybe this was just a slip up on the professor's part, but this sort of thing could be adding to the confusion. So, it's important that those of us that respect logic and the scientific method will not allow analytical specificity to be merged into diagnostic specificity and then passed off as valid medical practice. However, the lack of formalized clinical diagnostic criteria for CO 19 seemed to allow the slight of hand to be hidden in plain sight. I made a video titled what is a COVID 19 case in late 2020 addressing this very issue. In my presentation, I show that the WHO's official document states that a confirmed COVID 19 case is a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID 19 infection irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. This was a bad look for the WHO because it openly admitted that cases were not required to be related to disease. Just 3 days later, they removed the statement and published a completely revised document. While the new version looked more scientific, essentially nothing had changed as a confirmed case could still be a person with a positive nucleic acid amplification test. So, any old positive PCR test will do. To add to the smokec screen, the WHO website released another PCR update on the 20th of January 2021, stating the assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis.

[00:14:04]>> Yes, WHAT YOU SEE ICEBERG RIGHT AHEAD.

[00:14:07]>> THANK YOU.

[00:14:08]>> On 11th of November 2020, the CO 19 PCR tests hit some of their first major legal problems. Judges in the Lisbon Court of Appeal delivered some decisive rulings, including in view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds in fact to the infection of a person by the SARS KV2 virus. That I can certainly agree with. They also said the test reliability depends on the number of cycles used, which is being far too generous because no diagnostic specificity was ever established. So cycle thresholds are meaningless in this regard as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that reducing cycle threshold requirements for a positive case wouldn't be a good start. It's likely that a cycle threshold of say 25 down from the 40 cycles typically being used would result in such a dramatic decrease in cases that panicked policy makers would be forced to concede that they've been swept up in a PCR pandemic with regards to even 36 or 37 cycles being classified as positive for CO 19. PCR expert Professor Steven Bustin stated back in April 14, 2020, "It's absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever from his point of view. Once you get above a cycle of about 35, that would be roughly equivalent to a single copy of target RNA. And with a single piece of RNA, it would be absurd to conclude that a person is infected. I really encourage you to listen to Professor Bustin explaining the limits of PCR. And I've linked his interview with the late David Crow below. The inventor of the PCR, Carrie Mullis, had even less faith in its application for detecting infections.

[00:15:50]>> PCR is separate from that. It's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something.

[00:15:55]>> That's what it is. But it's not It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.

[00:16:04]>> I wish I could tell you that many of the policy makers are following the science, but I get the feeling the situation is going to go on for a bit longer. Keep the conversation going in the comments and let me know if there are other aspects about PCR or diagnostics you would like me to cover next. When I look at that video, I realize that I was much more gentle with the viologists and quote infectious diseases doctors a few years ago. These days, I just come out and say that they've had their chance for far too long. The whole discipline of viology and the bogus concept of contagion should have been shelved long ago. Part of the reason my husband Mark wrote a formal reputation of the virus model in a farewell to viology and his earlier essay with Dr. John Beaven Smith, the co 19 fraud and war on humanity was to warn the world that the pseudocience is being used as a Trojan horse to bring humanity to its knees.

[00:17:03]And now the virus fraudsters are at it again. Almost 3 years into the fake pandemic and purveyors of propaganda, the Guardian report that a cruise ship carrying a reported 800 passengers infected with CO 19 has docked in Sydney on Saturday morning.

[00:17:22]What's that? There's a reporter on the ground. Let's see what he has to say.

[00:17:27]The cruise operator Carnival Australia said they've been leazing with New South Wales Health even before this happening uh just as an eventuality that this is something that might happen and that they've taken measures to mitigate uh these risks. Now, this outbreak started halfway across a 12-day uh cruise. So, passengers have been sick for a few days. They've said all of them are either mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic.

[00:17:50]>> Our reporter seems a little confused.

[00:17:53]First he said there was an outbreak and people had been sick for a few days.

[00:17:58]Then he said all are mildly symptotomatic or asymptomatic. This is a scam they have been running since 2020 claiming that people with no symptoms or signs are sick. Keep in mind that it is supposed to be a deadly pathogen which is why they gave it the SARS or severe acute respiratory syndrome moniker.

[00:18:18]Despite the fact that SARS COV 2 has never been shown to exist, CO 19 is a preposterous diagnosis that doesn't require any specific symptoms or signs.

[00:18:27]It is simply the result of a molecular detection test, typically the PCR or antigen test. People get sick on cruise ships all the time due to numerous factors including motion sickness, alcohol excess, and fairly commonly contamination of food and water sources.

[00:18:47]Added to the mix is the typically older age demographic aboard these cruisers.

[00:18:52]Many of the passengers are in the final stage of their mortal lives. A lukewarm seafood bisque followed by a massive sugar hit at the all you can eat dessert buffet combined with some potent cocktails and some thrills at the slot machines could be more lethal than a CO 19 jab. The fraud was out in broad daylight in 2020 with the Diamond Princess. If you look at the 14 deaths they claimed were due to CO 19, you can see that apart from one, they were all in their 70s and 80s. The details surrounding the deaths are sketchy, but the occasional press release would say something like, "Japan's government officials say an 87year-old man and an 84 year old woman, both Japanese, died on Thursday. The two individuals had underlying health problems. There was no evidence of a new disease and no evidence of anything contagious, simply elderly people with underlying health issues dying as they are prone to do.

[00:19:53]Also of note was that not one of the 1,045 crew members died. However, the Wikipedia entry concludes that as many as 14 are reported to have died from the virus, all of them older passengers, an overall mortality rate for those infected of 2%. However, all of them were fraudulently called COVID deaths on the basis of misleading tests that have never been clinically validated for what is claimed. Unfortunately, 3 years into the swindle and many people, including those who claim to be redpilled, continue to buy into this narrative.

[00:20:31]They dance around at the edges saying that there are too many quote false positives or the situation should be managed a different way or the vaccines are not effective. To us, this is a waste of time. When the virus model and contagion in a wider sense has been debunked, we address the problem upstream. Hence there is no point debating masks, isolation, vaccines and pharmaceuticals because there is no it and therefore there is nothing to transmit or make protocols for. The contagion and virus narratives are going to continue as we have just seen with the third Princess cruise ship pandemic story. And as I have covered in recent videos, the lab leak and gain of function narratives are ramping up even more. So where is this all heading? If you read through the Jeffrey Saxs headed paper, the Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the CO9 pandemic, you'll get some hints. Section 3 contains the recommendations and our lab leak proponent suggests the need for more testing, more vaccinations, face masks, and vaccine passes. It also urges for the creation of a one world government through a WH quote global health board. And of course, it will all be done. agenda 2030 style with the weasel words sustainable development and a green recovery. Make no mistake, these are the steps to the biocurity surveillance state that the global cult are attempting to impose on you. Now, Jeffrey Saxs and his globalist friends are openly promoting this agenda. But they are also receiving help from anyone promoting virus and lab leak nonsense.

[00:22:14]For example, I covered some of the individuals who were duped into believing there was a virus in the ridiculous Boston University mouse study in my recent video, Viology Nights. And we will keep calling out the pseudocience of biology, no matter who is espousing it. I would also recommend watching Tom Cowan's video gain of fiction discussing lab created quote viruses. It complements my video nicely as Tom also talks about how tests need to be clinically validated and why the lab leak proponents in the freedom community are leading their supporters into trouble. Imagining there is a virus or an it is complete foolery for another reason and that's because targeting such a nonsense entity means that the real causes of disease are missed. There are plenty of reasons why people get sick, but the principles are actually very straightforward. You can tune in to our monthly Q&A sessions where we often discuss this issue in further detail.

[00:23:15]Access to Q&A can be gained through Dr. Sam's community website membership or a Dr. Sam Bailey Substack subscription.

[00:23:23]You can sign up to either of these options at dram bailey.com.

[00:23:27]Make sure you take the right path that will truly take you away from the false paradigms and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free. John 8:32.

[00:23:42]If you enjoyed this video, please visit supportdam.com.