The David Knight Show - Interview: Doctors Destroyed for Medical Dissent

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey recount how questioning the COVID narrative in New Zealand led to debanking, asset seizures, secret bankruptcy rulings, and six-figure fines—punishment not for harming patients, but for dissent.Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Well, joining us now are doctors Mark and Sam Bailey, Sam short for Samantha, and you can find their website at Dr. Sam Bailey.com. They put it in her name because, although they're both doctors, she was on TV in New Zealand, and she started asking some uncomfortable questions of the establishment. And so I had them on about a year ago, and we were talking about their book at the time was the final pandemic. and they were pointing out, they were questioning all of virology, which is what they've done. That's got them in a lot of trouble in New Zealand. And so I want to get caught up as to what's happening in New Zealand. And I like to get their comments on what's happening in America as the pharmaceutical industry is getting pretty desperate to defend vaccines. And so we're starting to get these narratives about measles epidemics.

And I know that they're skeptical of that as I am as well. So thank you for joining us, Dr.'s Mark. and Sam Bailey. Thank you. Good to have you back. Thank you, David. Pleasure to be here. And yeah, I think you're quite right. Sam in particular has been in some more hot water here in New Zealand. And last year, she unexpectedly had her bank accounts frozen. Really? And yes. And then we had the authorities trying to seize some of our family assets because apparently Sam owes them money for COVID crimes. She's even been charged here in New Zealand with COVID-19.

Apparently, that's a charge that they can bring against you. Anyway. Well, they use it to lock everybody down, so I guess they could use it to lock you up. So they actually have a charge called COVID-19? What is that involved? It's for them, in the medical world, that's with when I, when they had their fake kind of kangaroo court tribunal about me, that's what they charged me with was COVID-19. And so, yeah, but they said they are, I owe a lot of money because of, yeah, my thought crimes.

And, yeah, and they debanked me. And that took, I had to go into court to fight it. And that was quite full on. Wow. Yeah, it was just, it was really disruptive for several months, David. But Sam had a good result. She took them into the high court and it was ruled as unlawful. They're still going after these crazy COVID fines.

but they've been told, no, you're not allowed to do what they did in making this attempt to seize bank accounts, etc. So, yeah, but it's just, like you say, this is what happens when doctors like us who were once in the establishment and Sam was a real golden girl, like you say, she was on network television and a real favourite. And then come early 2020, she questioned the COVID narrative

and said, look, I don't think there's a pandemic at all. and that led to this. So yeah, and like you say, we put out the final pandemic. That was actually now, was that, 2024? Yeah. We put that out. Yeah, it's a couple of years since we put that out. And you've been really busy.

You've got a new book that you just put out. Tell us a little bit about that. Well, I guess it's an older new book. It's the book version of my essay, A Farewell to Biology. Now, I wrote this in 2022 because I felt there wasn't a standalone piece, a treatise, refuting the entire virus model, all of virology. So I wrote this essay. It's about 29,000 words. And it's pretty dry.

And Sam said there's no way I could ever make that into a video production. And she didn't. Although filmmaker Steve Falconer did make it into a. three-part documentary eventually. But we had such positive feedback, and we'd reached the point where the PDF had been downloaded about quarter of a million times, and we were surprised because it's a very dry technical paper, you know, repeating the virus model. And we decided last year, why don't we put it out as a book?

And I included a couple of bonus essays that I've written since that time. And that's sold really, really well. it's really thrilling, David, to see this, that we think, you know, not so long ago, people, you know, weren't questioning this stuff on a widespread scale. Nowadays, this is coming up all the time. And people are not only questioning vaccines and pandemics, but also the entire virus model.

So it's been really positive for us to see that there's a big appetite out there for this work. And we're seeing people now, in conversation say, yeah, well, I don't believe in vaccines. And then you'll hear someone say to them, well, I don't think that viruses are, you know, there's sufficient evidence for them either. So, yeah, we see this is the whole thing, the silver lining with the COVID fraud. That's right. Is that it has inadvertently woken people up and they've gone deeper and deeper into looking into

these things. That's right. We talked about that last time. And, you know, it's kind of interesting. It's what we say about government all the time. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you. And we could say the same thing about virology, right? You say, this might be pretty dry reading, but after what happened five years ago,

I think people need to say, you know, this is something I need to know about. I need to interest myself in this because this was used to lock down the world. And if it's going to be used to lock down the world, we need to know a little bit about it. You know, when you're talking about getting, yes, go ahead. Oh, sorry, no, I was just going to say, exactly, it's so important. And I think when people, when people, you can't, we can't cold call people and say, look into this. It has to come from the individual. But I think it's really started with there's been a complete lack of trust in the medical system since after what's happened.

People have now distrusting vaccines. And the next question that falls to people, well, do these things even exist? What are they doing to us? And that in itself, that question, when you answer it, is so empowering. because it changes your entire way of seeing health and how to be well. And it's a really positive step. And we see it. There's a great awakening going on.

Yes, yes. Well, you know, that is, and I've said this for the longest time, whether we're talking about the Green New Deal or whatever, you know, it's like, show me your data. I was with a group that had to sue to try to get Michael Mann's data as part of the climate gate thing that happened with East England. and he fought so hard to keep his data secret. Oh, that's kind of suspicious.

I don't think somebody would do that if it was all up and above board. And so that really kind of feeds your skepticism. And, you know, if it's true, you don't need to hide it. And so I think that's the key thing about a lot of this stuff. People saw this throughout the virus stuff. And we saw the heavy hand of censorship. And as you're talking about before, debanking people and that type of thing, I got debanked in May of 2021, five months after we started the show.

And at that point in time, PayPal was where I got pretty much all the contributions that we got was through PayPal. So that was a really big deal when we got cut off in the one place. So now we've made sure that we've got a lot of different places where people can support the show. But I just saw that they've admitted that most of these debank orders are, the debanking is being driven by government, not by the corporations. just like we saw with the censorship. For the longest time, we said this censorship is coming from the government we can tell because of the pattern in it. And then they admitted it.

We got the documents. And you could see that it was actually coming from the government. The same thing true of the debanking as well, as we would all suspect. So, yeah, it's, let's talk a little bit about measles, though, because we've had here in the United States before we had from going to war with the world and changing the subjects every other day. they were starting to push back against some of the minor changes that are being made at HHS by RFK Jr. I'm glad to see some of these changes.

They've reduced the, I don't know if you're familiar with what's going on in the U.S., but they've reduced the vaccine count that they recommend that they're really virtually mandating for children by the pressures that were put on to pediatricians. They would offer both carrots and sticks to make sure that they would get the kids vaccinated. And so there were penalties associated with the reimbursements they would get from the insurance companies and things like that. So they have pulled back some of these. And we go back and look at the vaccine schedule. I was really surprised to see how many times they would repeat these vaccines. Some of them were given four and five times during childhood.

And so they pulled back the frequency and the number of vaccines that are recommended. And they've also pulled it back to say there's not going to be any penalty if you don't follow the recommendation. So that's positive stuff, but that's really got the vaccine industry fired up. So they were coming back with measles. And so I went to the CDC and I thought it was kind of interesting to see how many cases they had and how many so-called outbreaks that they had because they put a lot on this South Carolina. And there was another one in Georgia, but South Carolina, they were really focused on just a couple of months ago. And they were giving us narratives saying that, you know, had 100 kids or whatever.

And I said, yeah, but you notice that they're not saying anybody is hospitalized. and nobody has died. Even though we had in Texas, I think it was in 2024, they had two cases that they claimed had been fatal. When children's self-defense went in and investigated, they found that that was not the cause of death of these.

So that's been disputed. And I think very effectively disputed. But they never even claimed that anybody died or was hospitalized out of these cases in South Carolina and Georgia. And I thought it was kind of. of interesting, Mark and Sam, that when they define an outbreak, that is more than three cases that are connected. And so they said that 69% of the cases in 2024 were outbreaks, but then that

meant that 31% of the cases were not. And so it's like, that's kind of strange. If they're telling us that this is the most contagious virus out there, how is it that you're getting all these situations where you have one person or two people that have it and nobody else has it. And so that raises a question, I think, in my mind at least. What would you tell the audience? I know we talked about this last time we were on. We talked about measles, but kind of give us a refresher course about your position about measles and what you think is going on here because a lot of people have had an

experience with it where most of us in the U.S. had measles at my age. And so the question is, you know, why did a lot of us have measles back then? Why is it so many fewer right now? And why did it appear like it was something that was being passed on to people? You want to speak to that? Yeah, sure. And David, this comes down to the narrative that the media present. And it's a complicated thing because, like you say, people will contact us and say,

hey, there's an outbreak in the city in the United States and they're all unvaccinated kids. and some of them are really sick. And you have to really pick things back to the whole historical aspects of measles and the basic science. So like you, we would say, first of all, investigate what do they mean by an outbreak? And we find that these days

there might be two cases and they're splashing that in the headlines saying outbreak. Now, this is something historically that would have never made national news, let alone, caused a murmur in the local community, Nobody calls that an outbreak, but they've changed the language.

They've changed the definitions. Then we have the issue with what is a case. Now, historically, they didn't have any tests, any laboratory tests, so it was all done clinically. You know, so a kid would present with a rash and a fever. And it was up to the doctor to decide what that was. Now, Sam and I used to be in the system, and we were trained up in that system. And they'll tell you all of these things, like, oh, no, a doctor. in those measles because there's coplick spot,

this coplic spots in the mouth, the special sign that you'll see, all this kind of stuff. And then you look into the research and you find out that these case definitions are so woolly. Most of them don't have these special features. The rashes all look very similar.

How do you distinguish between hand, foot and mouth, you know, measles? Chicken pox, monkey pox, smallpox. They're all just degrees. They're all just similar presentation. coughs, fevers, runny noses and rashes, a lot of it comes down to what the doctor decides. Then we have this problem of whether the child has been vaccinated or not.

So a lot of the time the child's been vaccinated, you're not allowed to make the diagnosis. You know, you have to look at something else because that doesn't look good. And at other times, there's a special message that goes out to the medical community. and there may be incentives to report the cases. You know, you need to suddenly start reporting. So we have to think that these are often artificial situations that we're seeing. Nothing is actually changing in the community, but it's the way it's being presented, the way it's being tested,

the way things are being looked for. So, yeah, we know historically, like you say, that many of us last century were given the diagnosis of measles. By definition, it was a very much. mild condition. And a lot of kids used to celebrate getting it because it meant that they got the week off school because of this crazy notion that people thought it was a contagious entity. So for a child, it was a pretty exciting time. You got the measles. It was a guaranteed week or two off school while you hit the rash, etc. So, but these days, as you know, we're being presented

with the story that the measles is deadly. It's so, oh my goodness, imagine. Imagine, if your child got that. And we're not actually seeing cases or claimed cases where children are dying outside of these very small number of events and incidents where on deeper inspection, on actual looking at the medical records, we find out that these kids were sick for other reasons. And someone happened to label them or said that they had a co-infection, in quotes with measles at the time.

And then the media pick up on it and say, you know, child with measles dies. But, you know, it's clear to us when you look at the medical records that the child was sick for other reasons. That's what happened in Texas with Dr. Brian Hooker and other shas. I agree. Yeah. And so there is, as you point out, sometimes there's an incentive to not reported as measles. Sometimes there's an incentive to reported as measles. And it's very similar to what we saw with COVID.

The government, the federal government, was giving a bonus. to doctors if they would do a clinical diagnosis, pointed somebody that he's got COVID. And so you get, I think it was $13,000, if I remember correctly. And then towards August of 2020, you had the American Hospital Association say, wait a minute, you're telling us now

that you need some kind of a PCR diagnosis that's here. You told us at the beginning, those didn't work and you didn't have enough of them. And he told us just to do a clinical diagnosis and now you're not paying up. So that kind of blew the cover because there's no honor among thieves, I guess. And so people would start to see things like that happening.

And we realize now that that's not just limited to COVID. This is the type of thing they've been running for quite some time, isn't it? Yeah, definitely. And I think what is also interesting is, you know, what Mark was saying with the classification, a serious pathogen. You only need one case for it to be defined as an outbreak. So that's what happened.

We saw in COVID in New Zealand where there was one case and the whole nation went into lockdown. Just to be clear, when Sam says, pathogen, that's in quotes. We don't want people to think. That's on their terms. Yeah, yeah. Pathogenic is a word, you know, means disease-causing. Pathogen, they took this term last century and made it up and said, oh, that's microbes, you know, bacteria. and invisible or imaginary viruses.

But as Sam says, in their system, they will say that you can have one case. And if it's a serious one, they say that's an outbreak. We now have an outbreak, folks. And yeah, in countries like New Zealand, they'll shut down the entire country. Naturally. That's what happens. Yeah. Oh, it's crazy.

And I think that's one of the key things that many of us don't realize is they haven't really done real science. I'm sure you address that and your farewell to voracious. They didn't do real science to isolate a particular thing like a virus or something and then correlate that to the illness to say, well, we got this thing that we find and the people who are sick and we don't find it and the people are well. And if we take that and transfer it to the people who are well, they get sick. That's what everybody thinks is happening, but that's not what's happening, right?

Yeah. David, there is a hidden history behind measles. and when Sam and I trained as doctors, they didn't tell us about this. And they presented very selective information. And they said that there was some monkey experiments that were done early last century that proved that measles was highly contagious.

Now, that was very disingenuous because when we actually dug into the history, and I've got a note here, researchers like Daniel Reuters, our Australian colleague, have done magnificent work digging up all of these old studies. There were a whole lot of studies in the 1800s,

and people would be shocked if they knew what they actually did because you'd never get the stuff approved these days past the ethics committees. So they were taking children, and even young ones like babies, and trying to give them measles. They were doing everything they could. So a doctor would researcher would locate a case of a kid that was unwell, with what was said to be measles.

That quickly take snot and tears and even blood from these kids. And then they'd go and try and infect other kids. Now, often they'd just squirt it straight up their nose or, you know, expose their eyes or just put it on their skin. Sometimes they would actually make wounds to their bodies and introduce this material, this disease material. They would also inject it straight into other children. so they'd take blood from one child,

said to have measles, inject it into another. All failures didn't work. All they could induce were these local kind of reactions. And they said, because they were so obsessed of showing that there was some sort of contagious element, they said, oh, maybe techniques insufficient. There were even techniques where they brought monkeys in and they exposed them to sick humans

and the monkeys didn't get sick. So eventually they resorted to taking blood from people said to have measles and injected it into these monkeys, these rhesus monkeys and other small monkeys. Some, not all, some of the monkeys developed a little bit of a rash around the injection site and a fever. And then they said, well, that proves it. there was a study 1911 Anderson and Goldberger, and this is the one they were sight of saying, well, that's when they showed it was contagious.

Now, the rest of us looking at this is saying, this is outrageous because the WHO and the CDC, they say that measles is an airborne disease. It's transmitted via aerosol, and that just being in the same room with someone is enough to cause you to come down with the case of the me. measles. Clearly, the research never showed that.

They had to do these preposterous experiments where they injected animals with human blood. And we know, David, that that will cause a reaction because, and even the human experiments they did, sometimes you'll get a reaction because the blood is not cross-matched appropriately. So you don't need a virus to cause these increases in temperature. and none of them recreated the same illness, the classic illness. So completely this is all hidden. Well, they did the same type of thing. I learned this from you.

They did the same type of thing like from 1940-something and 1980-something, the UK Cold House, where they were doing everything they could to transmit colds to people and failed in the same way that you're talking about what they did in the 1800s. Sam has a great video on the common cold unit that people. can watch and really amazing. This is where they invented coronaviruses, David. This is where it comes from.

And humans, because they said, yeah, we don't really know what's going on here, but we think it must be viruses. 40 years they operate this facility in England. And out of it comes nothing but virology mythology,

mythology, where they said that they found about a couple of hundred viruses that seem to cause common colds. And again, we looked at those experiments, and we were shocked because the vast majority of them completely failed. And importantly, Daniel Reuters has gone further with his book, Can You Catch a Cold, where he documents hundreds and hundreds of these human transmission attempts

with flus and colds, and they fail. You know, the mode is that most of the experiments, completely fail. And this is like extreme. This is people coughing in other people's faces, living in the same room for several days at a time, and just this complete inability to make the other person sick. And transference of body fluids like, you know, mucus and things like that as well, right? But it seems like, you know, they come up with the name coronavirus. Maybe it was based on circular logic, me, virology. Maybe that was it, huh? I don't know. But, yeah, well, The story there is, yeah, it's just incredible because, yeah, the coronavirus stuff just

pops up all the time. But essentially it was a exercise where a virologist gave a tissue sample to an electron microscopist June Alameda in the 1960s and said, basically said to her, there's a virus in there. Can you find it? And she just pointed to something and said, I think that's it. And then forevermore, if people see this, they say, that's the coronavirus. or a coronavirus.

Yeah. Point in to clear, we call it. That kind of reminds me of the etymology of the term computer bug. You know, they had a woman who, they had a malfunctioning machine. They opened it up. There was a bug. And so after that, we all talk about having bugs inside the software. But it's kind of that same sort of thing.

You know, we got an inkling of this as everybody was talking about rushing this vaccine into deployment. And I guess that's a good word, since it was kind of a military. military operation. And so they were talking about, we got to speed this up. He had a lot of true believers out there and said, I'll volunteer. You know, let me have this vaccine and then you can expose me to it. We can short circuit this. Because the way they would do the testing, that was kind of a harbinger of all this stuff. The fact is that they don't expose people to the disease that you're supposed to, that this is supposed to prevent. Right. So when somebody is getting a therapeutic, they take somebody who's already sick with the condition

and they give them this therapeutic and they have a control so they have people who get a placebo and people get the new treatment and they look to see, first of all, the first phase is does it kill people? So they have just a very small group of people and to check to see if there's really obvious immediate damage that's done.

And then if it clears that hurdle, then they start with the phase two and phase three tests where they start to get people that already have this condition to see if it makes a little bit of a change with them, and they look at the efficacy of it based on the difference between the control group and the people who got the drug. But they say with a vaccine, we can't do that. It'd be unethical to, if this stuff doesn't work,

it would be unethical to give this disease to somebody, except that's what they were doing in the cold house. That's what they were doing in these other virology experiments you're talking about in the 1800s. And so in a sense, if they were to do that, they called that a challenge test. if they were to do that, it would show people that there was nothing there in the first place, I think. That's maybe another reason they don't do that because it doesn't seem to be a whole lot of ethics in terms of preventing them from doing a lot of other things.

So it may be that they're just trying to hide cover for virology. I don't know. What do you think of? Yeah. Definitely. Yeah, David, it's really interesting. You mentioned that because Sam and I both used to work in clinical trials. And these were in big farmer sponsored human trials. We were in the dark side, David.

We were trained up in that craft. Now, one thing that really struck us when we were involved in that work and you'll see that in some of our presentations, like recently Sam did one on vitamin K injections and the newborn. And that is this numbers needed to treat them. where they're saying, oh, we can't do the trial because the numbers need, well, they don't say that. They'll say because the size of the trial would need to be so big. And you're like thinking to yourself, why would you need a trial that size for something that's supposedly really effective?

You know, because they're saying we need like 200,000 people in the trial to show that it's effective. You know that at that point, it's absolute ridiculousness because the numbers, needed to treat, even on their own terms. Maybe explain what that means. Yeah, so that's the numbers you would need to give a therapy to, to prevent one event, not to save a life and it's whichever event

you choose. So the event might be sneezing. So you might say, well, we've got this new therapeutic and the numbers needed to treat 900 and it will prevent one sneeze. So clearly telling a person, hey, I've got

this treatment that prevents sneezing, A person might say, oh, great, I'll take that treatment. If you told them, 900 people need to take this medication and one will get the benefit, which is not sneezing, 899, will not get the benefit. And they'll be exposed to all of the potential adverse effects of that medication. And they won't tell you those because they might not have looked at them all. So this is the preposterousness. And like you say, they'll just say, oh, we can't do the trials because. of this reason and that reason.

And that should be a red flag to people right away as to the fact that this is not an effective treatment. And the only way it can work is through manipulation of the narrative. And it's a big thing. And it's what pharmaceutical companies really rely on these days. And with vaccines, you know, which we're talking about here a lot. The narrative is completely fraudulent. where they're mixing all sorts of things of mortality rates and incidents and who's vaccinated and who's not.

All of these things, they manipulate the statistics. It's outright fraud. I mean, Sam and I have exposed this stuff in some of our presentations looking at the CDC's own data and what they classify as vaccinated versus unvaccinated. And they will do things like they'll classify someone as unvaccinated. if the person knows that they've been vaccinated but couldn't remember the date of the vaccination. In the CDC's world, that goes into the unvaccinated category.

Now that's preposterous. The person clearly has been vaccinated and it's just manipulating the statistics to produce a certain narrative. In the case of measles too, when I remember back, I used to work as a GP for a while, general practitioner. I remember saying the only patients I ever saw

with a true measles type rash, you know, the really classic looking one, they were all drug reactions. There were people that had had antibiotics, and then a week later, they developed this classic measles rash, you know, and that was the only ones I ever saw. And it's funny how, again, this is all crafted.

If I'd said that there wasn't, I hadn't asked about the drug history, I would have called it measles and classified it. And, you know, you realize how much this problem keeps popping up. up, isn't it, with the... Absolutely, and some of them are vaccine reactions as well.

But of course, if you've had the vaccine, you're not supposed to have the disease. And I know that critics will say, yes, but they have tests to differentiate that stuff, you know, antibody assays and stuff. But we've looked into all of these assays. They're dubious in themselves on their own terms. So all of it is, yeah, to protect this narrative.

But what I think is really positive, David, is that clearly people, you know, got, um, wised up to the COVID-19 narrative and went off that one. So now we see them relaunching, other narratives. And because measles is not even familiar to people anymore because one thing Sam and I point out is that by the 1980s when we were kids, uh, most people, infectious diseases, in quotes, weren't even a thing. Yeah.

And so many people were turning away from that. vaccines and could not see the need for them. Kids had generally got really, really healthy. Childhood mortality had fallen away to almost nothing. And then, of course, they had to relaunch things in the 1990s with these fair campaigns that suddenly these diseases like chickenpox and measles, which were joke illnesses to the physicians of old, who were often dealing with much more serious problems, suddenly the narrative changed. And we were told that these are incredibly serious diseases and all children need to be vaccinated. And that's why we saw the massive increase in the childhood vaccination schedule from the

1990s through to the present day. That's insane. As you've noted, it's... What are the numbers of vaccines that they've set up in New Zealand for kids, you know, from like birth to, let's say, I guess it was 16 or something like that? they've got like 72 here was what it was just until just recently. What do you have in New Zealand? Yeah, that's a really good question. I'm not actually sure of the

Yeah, ours is not far off. We don't have quite the same number, but it's up there. And it's the big change has been, as I say, the increase since the 1990s. You know, back in the 80s and 70s and 80s, there were only a handful that kids would be given and not many shots. But like the United States, the number of shots went up and up and up. And then it started including things like hepatitis, you know, which even on their own terms, kids are not supposed to get. Yeah. And, you know, up to this point today where, like you say, a child might get almost 80 shots by the time they're a teenager in a country like the United States. Now, I think there have

been some positive moves to try and reduce the number of recommended vaccines. vaccines on the schedule, but we have to keep in mind they're all fraudulent. None of them are required. I agree. We need more. And some people are saying, well, you know, RFK Jr. is doing his work. He's in there. Hard for us to know how that's going to pan out because obviously people can still get all of these vaccines.

And when they take their children to the doctor, most doctors are still in that mode of thinking where they think all vaccines are required. and that you give as many as you can, etc. So whether that pans out with any positive influence, I'm not sure. We can see on the ground what is positive is that more people are turning away from vaccines at the moment than going in the other direction. So countries like New Zealand is definitely dropped off. And a lot of parents now are saying no to the whole vaccination schedule. Good, good.

And is there a lot of pressure on parents? What is the situation with parental consent there in New Zealand? It's not. So we don't have the same situation like California has where children are required to have all the childhood vaccinations in order to go to school and things that there isn't. Sort of mandatory things like that in place. But in saying that if you go to a university like a college and you go into particularly a health-related career, you're expected to have all of the vaccines plus. you know, so Mark has a funny story where they nearly didn't become a doctor because he was very

on the cusp of not taking. Yeah, I got identified as a medical student. It was red flagged. I hadn't had all the jabs and I was so close not to having them and unfortunately I was gaslit by some of the physicians in the hospital where I was working and when I raised a few concerns they said, oh no, this is, it's all discredited anti-vaxist. stuff and they said don't even bother looking at that stuff because yeah there's been a lot of analysis etc and yeah so i came close to not having many of the vaccines when i was um

as a medical student but unfortunately yeah that pressure uh of they said i couldn't progress basically into clinical medicine and unfortunately i had a few of the vaccines back then but luckily no adverse uh events it's kind of a loyalty to us isn't it? Are you loyal to pharma? If not, we can't put you in the medical field if you're going to question what pharma is doing. It's kind of interesting how they focus on medical students like that and doctors and nurses. Yeah. Exactly. It's opticians. It's every, every physios across the board, you know, and you're right, it totally is. It's this test. And you realize, I didn't kind of appreciate it until what happened after 2020, when you start questioning germ, questioning vaccines is

standing on a landmine, but questioning germ theory is like, you cannot be in the club if you think like this. It's real, you'll be ostracized. Yeah, and they don't want any discussion about it. That was what was terrible, was our training in the medical system about vaccines was essentially based around how many vaccines kids should have,

like memorizing the schedule. and how to deal with so-called anti-vaxxers. And they were presented as, you know, these diluted people who had, who were making money out of, I don't know how you make money out of being an anti-vaxer. Yeah, we know how you make money selling vaccines, but to tell people not to buy it, there's no money in that, really. Yeah, well, while Sam's bank accounts were being frozen,

we were looking up Pfizer going, my goodness, they made $100 billion out of that one product. And we couldn't quite. quite work out how the money is in being against the vaccines, but we were told, that it was what we were told, David, we were told that these anti-vaccine people, sophisticated operators who, you know, make a lot of money.

And it was, we didn't even look back then at science. They didn't say to us, well, here's the figures or here's the original papers. They didn't want you looking at that. So essentially, and we found out since then that the medical schools, the academia, the scientific journals, are largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry

and the medical establishment. It's in their interest to train the doctors up. And Peter Gotchae, his book, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime, really exposes this. It's redundant, probably. Yeah. The narratives are set by the industry. So there'll be these catchphrases, safe and effective as one. that came out of the thalidomide era.

And they'll have all of these things that doctors go around saying. And the doctors think that this comes from honest, hardworking doctors. And the origins of these catchphrases go back to the pharmaceutical industry and their marketing gurus. And unfortunately, it permeates the whole medical world to the point where it's just taken for granted and believe. Do you know really quickly, I can't remember if I told you this last time, David, but I remember so vividly. I graduated in 2005 from medical school. And so around 2003, I think it was, we had a pediatric rotation and they spent a morning with us teaching us how to deal with anti-vaxes. That was the whole thing.

And they said, I remember it because I was, I mean, I was staunchly pro-vaccine at this point. and that they would say they'll come at you and they'll have lots of paperwork. And don't worry about looking at any of it. What you need to focus on is that they've refuted all this, that this has all been, it's nonsense what they're telling you. They're in a cult and this is what they believe and you have to kind of talk them out of it. And it was this really patronising kind of talk down. I'm like, oh, yes, doctors, we know best.

And now I think, oh my gosh, they're just training you up to what this is, this is a really evil kind of, I don't know if that's still going, but that's definitely what I had. Yeah. Well, I remember in the summer of 2020 when they were talking about rolling out this vaccine, and they had already war-gamed how they were going to psychologically manipulate people. Yale had done a study, and they had about a dozen different categories of things that they could use. And they'd actually done double-blind testing, unlike the vaccines. So they actually tested the psychological.

stuff and the way that you would think that they would test a drug or something, but they had a control group that didn't get the narrative and then somebody else that they would use that argument on to see if it was effective. And it was all the kind of stuff like, you know, you need to do this for your neighbor. This is like the moonshot. You need to trust science. And all the narratives that we were sold, those were all tested with focus groups and with control groups. And that part of it was very scientific. That was the only part that really had science with it was the behavioral science. And it's kind of interesting because they create this kind of this science fiction world with viruses and all the rest of the stuff. And it's,

it is an interesting and very complete universe. You know, but of course, J.R.R. Tolkien did that with Lord of the Rings. He had a very intricate universe that he'd created, but it was all fake. So just because it's intricate doesn't mean that it's true. And the good science fiction is when you don't have logical gaps in the universe that you've created, right? And that was what I was seeing in 2020. When I'm watching this closely, it's like, wait a minute. What they're telling you doesn't make any sense at all. For example, all the stuff, your mask doesn't protect you. Other people's mask protects you, all that kind of stuff, which has been the long-term narrative for the vaccine. And that was a tip as to where they were going with the vaccine. But, you know, that

type of stuff, they had all these different things that were just illogical that they were telling people, that made absolutely no sense, even if you believed the virology, what they were telling people. didn't make any sense. It didn't hang together. No, and that astounded us too, David. In New Zealand, we had these really peculiar things. Like the government introduced this level system and this traffic light system. And they said, hey, look, when there's heaps of cases out there, we're going to shut down the whole country, it goes into red light, etc. And then when there are not many cases, we can open things up again. You know, this is during the COVID era.

And then they just did the complete opposite in front of everyone. so we have no cases. We literally had no cases even on their terms, and they shut New Zealand down and said, you can't leave your house. And then later on in 2022, when they allowed the rat test, the rapid antigen test,

to flood out there, of course people just started testing at home and the number of cases went through the roof. And then they just said, oh, it's time to open up. You know, it was completely illogical. It made no sense on their own traffic light level system. And Sam and I, of course, had refuted the entire notion that there was SARS-COVID virus or that COVID-19 represented some sort of new illness.

It was all circular reasoning. But aside from that, we thought the people who bought into the narrative, surely at this point they're going, this makes no sense, you know. And but for the people who really buy into the narrative, I think they just take the bits that suit them and discard the bits that don't suit them. That's right. And it's a wider problem. I don't know how it was in New Zealand.

But here, you know, if you went to a restaurant, for example, you had to wear a mask in order to be seated at a table. But once you got seated at the table, you can take the mask off. And then if you need to get up to go to the bathroom, you could walk through the restaurant without a mask on. It was all okay. And it's like, wait a minute. This doesn't make any sense. And I had a couple of, I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere if it was a chain. but I went to places that were locally owned, and I said, I want to speak to the owner.

And I talked to him, and they said, yeah, we know it doesn't make any sense, but you got to do it. And it's like, you're selling the rope that's going to hang here. This is crazy. And it was that kind of crazy stuff. And yet, the reality is that people were going along with it, whether they believed it or not. I don't know if other people believed it or they disbelieved it, but I know that they complied with it. And, you know, it's just to me, that was the worst kind of insanity. Now, we haven't had any kind of review or anything.

They didn't even pretend to have a review here in the United States. There has been a pretend review, a pretend inquiry in the UK. And you've got one going in New Zealand as well, right? You've got a couple of them. And these are typically going to be a whitewash. Is that situation that's going on in New Zealand, I guess? Yeah, they make it out like something's actually happening. Nothing's happening.

It's just, it's to placate the masses that there was some, oh, let's find a, to, oh, this could have been done, you know, maybe we should have locked down harder earlier. Maybe that should have been what happened. Yeah, it's an absolute gaslight, David, and it's really disappointing to see people buying into this stuff. And obviously, the government run these so-called inquiries. They appoint people, they say, are independent, but of course, they're these people that already go along with the establishment narrative, etc.

So here in New Zealand, to give you an idea of what a joke it was, the people that that propagated the scam. So the big names, like the Director General of Health and... Jacinda Arduin. The Minister of Health and, yeah, the Prime Minister at that time, Ardern. All of them were excused at the last minute. They didn't have to answer any questions. And because, you know, the public had a lot of questions for them.

But suddenly at the last minute they announced, no, they don't have to say anything. They were running the scam, but that's nothing to do. You know, it was really bizarre. And then you had, it's really sad to see because you had these groups going to the inquiry and presenting serious information, which was quickly dismissed because the government would then just counter it with their, quote, expert who would say, oh, no, that's not correct. I can't get into the details why that's not correct. But because I'm an expert, I just know this stuff.

So, yeah, a complete waste of time. But, I mean, countries like New Zealand and the UK, they love this sort of thing. You know, their royal inquiries or their national inquiries and stuff. And we do that occasionally. We'll have congressional committees look into something like Benghazi and they just go back and forth. Nothing ever comes to it. We had the Warren Commission when JFK was assassinated. And what we got out of that was this magic bullet theory.

So maybe that's why the public is. not pressing for this, or it might just be apathy, which is kind of what I'm thinking it is. I'm thinking it's not so much, you know, we've tried this before and then ever tells the truth. It's not that kind of cynicism. I think it's really apathy from the American public, and that's the thing that really concerns me. We didn't even try to get any answers here in America. But in some ways, I sympathize because everyone is saturated with constant fear and drama and

war and whatever. But I mean, it's just, it's overwhelming. And I mean, the things I take that are really positive, like we talked about earlier, was just that people are, people, many, many people are regretting that they ever took the vaccine. They're not willing to be tricked again. There's this huge distrust within the medical system. People are fearful of it and don't want to kind of be involved with it. And it's questioning all sorts of other things like virology.

and I think that is the great thing about it is we have to take the positives and everything comes from the people. It can't come from, I mean, the government is just so, as you know, it's just so controlled. Oh yeah. Yeah, and that's why we really focus, David, as you know, with our publications,

is to get people to the point where they can see, oh, this contagion is not what I've been told because look at this, influenza, the Spanish flu experiments, they didn't work. Look at the measles. They never ever showed it was contagious despite these things. Common colds didn't work in their 40-year history of trying these experiments. And once you get people to see that stuff, they can't unsee it.

So they don't need to then go back through and repeat the process because one of the worst things you'll see is people getting into arguments about face mass, for instance. And if they can see that there's no contagious, in the first place, the face mask has nothing to do with that whole world. Face masks, they do have uses. So for people that work in industry, where there's particulate matter in the factories or environment, it's really important. But face masks are not, they should not be a discussion within.

Yeah, and that was one of the things we were talking about at the time. You know, they're saying, okay, virus particles are this size. And if you look at the size of the filter, it's like, it's not going to work for that. They even put it on the side of the box, you know, it's not going to protect you against any virus. And yet it was mandated for this kind of stuff. That's what I was saying about when I'm talking about when I said, if you create a science fiction world, you've got to have some consistent rules within it. Yeah. So don't tell me that you've got to, that you've got to, it's like saying that you're going to keep mosquitoes out by using a chain link fence.

It isn't going to work. Yeah. Totally. And that's what we think is we call them distraction narratives. Yeah. Because they're downstream from the key issues. And we always say to people, go upstream, like, is contagion, I think. And it's the same with vaccination.

Now, we know that there are some researchers who focus on the epidemiology of vaccines. And that's fine because they often show they can refute vaccines that way. But we also encourage people to go upstream and say the epidemiology doesn't even matter because the foundational science fails. And not just on one. but on everything, on all of phyrology, on all of, you know, the bacterial so-called infections. None of them show that there are microbes that cause disease. Now, you do get some microbes that increase in numbers during certain diseases, like pneumonia, etc.

But that's not, there's no experiment that ever showed that they cause the disease. It may be a consequence, in other words, right? a consequence of the disease and a fact of the disease are not the cause. Totally. And once people get this, that they can see, oh my goodness, the germ theory is wrong. It should never have been called a theory. It was a hypothesis. And the hypothesis was refuted over and over again.

The experiments kept on failing. And they just had to keep making up these new narratives to keep people in this mode. And once people see it, as I say, they don't even want. worry about these downstream arguments and straight away they say well that's fine because it doesn't bother me and you know it's giving people that knowledge not to be afraid because you know it's one thing for people to realize that vaccines aren't useful but it's way more beneficial than themselves and their family to know hey you're not going to you're not going to catch diseases diseases Diseases build up from within.

Other people are not going to make you sick in the sense that they're going to give you some sort of infectious microbes. And once that way of thinking disappears, we find that people are just, they're free, basically. They've left that cage. The other thing, just touching on what you were saying before about masks and things, what really woke me up in a way in 2020 was when you see that the fraud is right in front of you, So the fraud, what I saw strongly when really started to question things was the tests and that the tests themselves, these are when the PCR tests were being used, would say

these are not diagnostic. And I thought, how can this be? And that's before you even go upstream like Matt says, and you go, oh my gosh, there's no such thing as SARS-CoV-2 doesn't even exist. When you can see it with open eyes and go, oh, my gosh, it's right in my face here on the mask packets it says that these won't work and yet people are walking around with them and you think how can this be

and that following that road will eventually lead you to freedom of going I don't need to be part I don't need to partake in these rituals anymore it truly was a bad science fiction movie wasn't it I remember there was a head of state in maybe it was Africa or something where he

tested some fruit and he got a positive test on it but I had an EMS listener who has worked in the field for decades. And he was very skeptical about all this stuff. And he had somebody open up on these packages and run it straight through without touching anything else and got it positive. So you look at all this stuff. And again, the guy who developed it said,

you can't use this for diagnostic purposes. Carrie Mullis said that. And so knowing all that stuff, I got to say it was still, you haven't been the back of your mind. It's like, well, you know, you hear all this stuff.

And, you know, I was absolutely convinced because, of the, the germ games that they've been doing, the first one two months before 9-11, Dark Winter. I knew what that was. I'd been tipped off by somebody. He said, they're talking about Dark Winter, too. And you know what that was about?

And he's like, yeah, I do. You know, and so be careful, watch out for this. And then they came out. It was exactly what they had practiced, you know, for 20 years, the first one, just two months before 9-11. And so I knew it was a hoax, but you still have in the back of your mind, you know, what if, you know, there's this little thing. but if you understand what you're telling people,

then it is the final pandemic and you don't have to worry about it anymore. The truth sets you free, doesn't it? Yeah, exactly. And I think it's getting people into that mindset, like Sam says, of just not participating in the rituals. You just, you completely get out of it and people say, well, you need to take a test

and you say, well, no, I don't. There's no need for me to do that because it's not a diagnostic test. Or people will say, well, you need to wear a mask. And you say, well, why I'm not on a problem? building site. I'm not breathing in dust. So that that's not a thing. It's getting them well and truly out of that.

And yeah, as you say, these exercises they were doing, they date right back in those decades leading up. And obviously in the 2010s, these tabletop exercises started becoming more common and, you know, right up until COVID time. And in the final pandemic in our book, we also exposed that they were, in the late 2010s, so around 2017, 2018,

suddenly the whole anti-vaxxer thing becomes big in their white papers and they start talking about how to, this problem with anti-vaxes and how they're going to combat it and all this kind of stuff. Because what was interesting was that these organizations who are linked up to globalist organizations, pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment, none of them were really talking about this until that two years before COVID. And clearly they had anticipated that there was going to be a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment.

But one thing that was interesting was that they didn't anticipate the rise in people who could see straight through germ theory and virology. And they didn't see, it was people like Sam that they didn't see coming because, you know, she's in. network TV doctor, you know, presenting generally mainstream stuff. And then suddenly, way off script. The COVID narrative is so preposterous that people like us said, well, hang on a minute. We need to say something here. And of course, the whole house of cards came down with, you know, these alleged pandemics. Well, I really do appreciate and admire your integrity. Sam, you're the only person I know that's lost two careers over this. Not only on TV, but in terms of medicine as well,

the way they've come after you and punitively come after you as well. And so I really do appreciate your integrity, sticking to the truth. It is so important what you're doing. Tell people, again, is the website the best place for people to find you? And can they get your books there at the website? Is that the best place? Yeah, thank you, David. Yeah, please.

Because, you know, we do the censorship dance too like you do. It's always just, especially substacks being tricky. So, no, the best place to find us is always the website, Dr.Sanbailey.com. And there's a tab there which has got all of our books. And you can download Mark's latest one for free or buy it if you wish to. That's all good. We just wish to spread that information and hopefully reduce people's fear in the process.

And people, there's a search bar on the website. So people can just, because we've covered hundreds and hundreds of topics, because people will say, hey, what about rabies, et cetera? So we've got a search part there. And people can just type in these terms and hopefully we've covered it already. Yeah. So a lot of information, yes. Yes.

Yeah, I'm also, I'm sorry, I'm also on YouTube, but I'm hanging on by a thread there. And, yeah, just so you know. But there's, yeah, substack and also I'm on telegram and Instagram in a little way. But, yeah, so just if you. And people can find you at Dr. Sam Bailey, B-A-I-L-E-Y dot com, right? That's a place to where they can find go directly there. And then you don't have any people in between trying to hide you. And that's what the search engine have become.

They become not a tool to find things, but a tool to hide things. especially people like doctors Bailey. And so I really do appreciate what you're doing. I know that it's cost you a great deal. You didn't become billionaires like the people of Pfizer-Moderna, instead just the opposite. And you've continued to push the truth out there to help people. I really do appreciate that.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, David. Thank you for what you're doing. Appreciate it. Have a good day. Well, I want to give you a little bit of an appendix here to this interview because after we stopped the interview,

they were still on the line, and we talked a little bit about what they've been going through, and they had a fascinating story that you've got to hear. So here's what they had to say. You tried to come to the United States, and what happened when you tried to make the trip? So in June of last year, I was trying to buy some stationary from the shop,

and what happened was none of my cards would work. And I was like, this is really weird because I just paid off my credit card. and so I went to the bank and then the bank teller wrote on a piece of paper and said have you recently been made bankrupt

and she slid it to me and I was like what no like I would know something like this wouldn't I? And she's like yeah yeah definitely and then she went away and she's on lots of different phone calls and then she comes back to me

and shows me this the website which is for New Zealand it's the insolvency website and my name is on there. Wow. And three days earlier, a high court had declared me bankrupt because of this money from the medical council that they say I owe the $170,000, $160,000.

Yeah, so just to be clear, it wasn't because Sam was insolvent or bankrupt. It was just because she'd never paid the medical, quote, authorities, their COVID fines, which, you know, were $160,000 or something. Yeah. And they did all this stuff in secret. So it's like a bankrupt.

The robbery except the banker is the one passing you the note to say we took all your money. It was insane. Honestly, David, like when it happened, because it caused such a shock. And then from there, because we were supposed to be going to the States for this trip, and you're not allowed to technically travel overseas without permission, you know, because they think you're going to abscond with money or something. And so I thought, oh, no, I'm not going to be able to go to the States. And this is something I was just so looking forward to.

And anyway, we fought it in the courts, went to the High Court two weeks before we were due to go to the States because they hadn't done their due process. They'd never told me. They'd never served me with any. I had no information whatsoever that this had been going on behind the scenes. Wow. So I, but the judge reserved the decision. So I didn't know whether I'll be able to travel. And anyway, I just, I believe in God.

and I went, we flew up, and Mark and I split up our gear, because Mark was speaking at this conference, and so I was supposed to. Mark had the laptop, and I had the car keys and some New Zealand money in case they said no. And then we went through the, you know, the smart things, gates, and then it did the green tick. And I basically, I just broke down crying

because I finally knew that I could go. And we hadn't been, the last time we'd been to, the States was in 2016. And for us, this was such a huge thing because it was meeting all these people that we've been working with since COVID. And I've always wanted to meet. And now I knew I could give them people hugs and, like, actually talk. And it was just such an amazing.

We had such a wonderful time. And then when we came back, I got the news that the bankruptcy had been annulled. So it was just an amazing time. Yeah. So the judge ruled that it was unlawful, the actions that they'd taken trying to seize bank accounts, etc. They're still actively going off saying that Sam has to pay these COVID fines. Even though the judge has ruled it unlawful, they're still coming after you? Well, he ruled the process that they took as unlawful, not the underlying claim that Sam needs to pay these COVID fines.

But it is preposterous. And many doctors in New Zealand are starting to. challenge this stuff now. They're just saying, look, this is outrageous. Why are we getting six-figure fines for questioning something? There's no, no patient has ever come forward to say they were harmed. They can't find anyone in the entire nation who got harmed by anything that Sam said or that any of the other doctors said who were practicing at the time. But this is the world we're living in where they are trying to scare. We think it's a good sign that this is how desperate it's become, that you have to,

give doctors six-figure fines if they don't agree with the narrative. And I think that really... It shows desperation, doesn't it? It shows desperation. That's all they've got now is these financial penalties. They know that they can't stop people from speaking out. And yeah, so that's, I think, we have to see the positive side of things. And it was quite satisfying when the judge ruled in Sam's favor and told them it was

unlawful what they were doing. And it makes you much resilient, like you said, and David, like, I think in terms of realizing, okay, this is, this is all they've got. Like, they tried to get me to sign a gag order way back in September 2020, and I wouldn't, you know, and I'll never, I'm so

pleased every step I've taken. It's been an empowering thing, and I feel great that this is all they've got. Like, they're still worried about me, the low me. I'm not, you know, an aggressive person, but it's like, this is the threat. That's right. Well,

person who was determined to tell the truth. That's the key thing that they can't handle. And of course, it's not science either if you can't handle skepticism. You know, science only advances when somebody questions a narrative. And they should never be in fear of trying to explain themselves and what they're doing. Then it obviously isn't science. It's not based on data and the scientific method. That's what I've said all along about so many of these different frauds. We see this type of thing happening over and over again. But it really underscores, I think, the fact that you kind of see this as a ministry. You see this as a way of helping people. And that is really your heart and your motivation. And I really appreciate that. Thank you so much for doing that.

Really do appreciate that. Thank you both of you. Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey. God bless. Thank you. Thank you, David. Thank you. Well, we'll fit that in somehow. That was too important to let go. Yeah, absolutely. So I got the same thing when they came after me. In a sense, no explanation. No as to what was going on. It was just PayPal. They also owned Venmo, and they shut me down on both of those platforms at the same time. I spent two hours on the phone with the guy, and the guy kept going on. He goes, well, I can't see any reason given here at all.

Just a message shut this account down as right now, you know, and no explanation given. I've never been given an explanation. I don't have the money to sue them in court and get an explanation. So I know what it is anyway. I'm not going to spend the time of the money to try to get confirmation. of it. So, yeah, but you have gone through more than anybody I know. And so I really do appreciate that. Thank you so much. It's always an honor to talk to you. Yeah, no, thank you, David. Yeah. And so pleased to see you doing well. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, in spite of a lot of different things,

but again, it's been prayer. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.

They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidnightshow.com.