The David Knight Show - Interview: They Lied About The Virus From Day One

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Christine Massey sent FOIA requests to 225 institutions across 40 countries — including eight separate requests to the CDC — asking for any record of SARS-CoV-2 being isolated and purified from a patient's bodily fluid. Not one institution produced such a record. Massey and David Knight walk through exactly what virologists actually do instead: stress monkey kidney cells with reduced nutrition, add cow serum and antibiotics, watch the cells break down, and call that breakdown proof of a virus they never isolated in the first place. 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” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases 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-show Or 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.

Joining us now is Christine Massey, and she had a very important finding. Actually, she didn't find anything. That was what is important. The dog that did not bark or the virus that they could not isolate. And so Christine did all of us a great service by getting people to ask a question. How do they know what they say they know? And that is something that we should all look at how they come up with these rock-solid foundations for virology. and these other quote unquote sciences, do they follow a scientific method that we think that they're

actually following? We just assume that they are because they make this pronouncement. So joining us now is Christine Massey, and I'll just say at the beginning, and we'll mention it again at the end. She does have a website that you can go to, and you can see the FOIA request that she sent out to hundreds of different places asking, have you isolated the COVID virus? and you can see what they said to her. That is a site that is a website, no record found, but you can find that at the URL that we have up for her substack.

That's where she updates the articles and she has links to all these other websites. So she does have an archive site where you can see the actual data that she got back from people. Tell us a little bit about this and how you started doing these FOIA requests. And how many of them have you done? Let's start out with that. How many of them did you do?

Well, I don't even have an actual number, I can tell you the number of institutions that we have on record. So we have 225 institutions from 40 different countries on record now. And that is with regards to the supposed SARS-CoV-2, which was said to be the virus that supposedly caused COVID-19. And I had a lot of help from various people around the world. And those were all focused. Most of them were asking, like you said, on isolation,

more specifically the way I worded it was do you have any record of anyone finding this alleged virus in the bodily fluid or tissue of anyone in the world and actually purifying it? Because that is what you would need to do if you wanted to actually sequence a particle in a valid logical manner and if you want to characterize it and if you want to perform valid rigorous controlled experiments to see if it causes effects. So that's what I was asking for. And yeah, on that topic alone, just on that one topic, we have 225 institutions on record, 40 different countries,

multiple institutions from some of them, for example, the CDC. We have eight different responses from different time points. And none of these institutions have any record of anyone actually finding the alleged particle and purifying it. And, you know, we can talk more too about what they actually do do in phrology because they're not even typically looking in bodily fluid to find an alleged virus.

They don't even come close. They're not even in the right ballpark when it comes to logic. And the scientific method, they do completely illogical, nonsensical methodologies. Yes, yes. And I think that's a key thing. So, you know, when we look at it

and they come back and say, well, you're talking about isolation. But we're talking about purification. or rather you're talking about purification, but we have this process, and we call it isolation, but it's not really isolated by itself. And so it's not really true isolation. They have a process that they call the Vincent Raqanielo definition of an isolated virus. And they are playing some games of that definition because they don't have a substance

that they have isolated from all other substances. No, and these alleged particles, like they can't even show that they exist as claimed, because like I was saying, first of all, they don't even typically look in the bodily fluid or tissue. So what people need to know is when they're being shown images of a supposed virus. First of all, a lot of them are just computer generated images or cartoons. But then when you see the electromagnoscope images, they're not actually looking in bodily fluid or tissue in those images. It's almost never, very, very few exceptions. So what they're looking at is a cell culture where they took the clinical sample.

They added it to a foreign cell line. They've added, it's usually monkey kidney cells, which makes it even more absurd. They add cow serum to the mix as a source of nutrition for the cell line. They use a cell line typically, that monkey kidney cells are cells that are known to break down readily. And this will become obvious in a minute. Why they do it, why they use that one. And they add antibiotics and antifungals and a nutrient mix, various things. So that's what you're actually showing in the electron microscope image.

So the problem is when they point at something, which is all they do, they just point at something and declare that that's the virus, they haven't actually shown that it is in the bodily fluid or tissue because it could be coming from the monkey cells or the cal serum. And some like Dr. Stefan Lanka, who was trained as a virologist, he would say it's just cellular debris because of the, when the cell line breaks down. Because what the avrologists do is they put all these stuff together and they lower the nutrition to the monkey cells. So they have a certain amount of nutrition that they would give a cell line to keep it healthy. But when they're doing these experiments to supposedly isolate a virus, they lower the nutrition to the cells.

And then they add extra antibiotics and antifungals usually. So they're putting the cell line in a stressed condition. And then they'll watch it for several days. And then if the cells start to break down, they call it cytopathic effects. And that is what they are passing off as isolation of a virus. It's just indirect evidence. They assume that if there's a virus, it will cause the cells to break down. So when they see the cells break down,

they declare that's because of the virus, the virus did it. Meanwhile, they haven't shown that there is a virus. They didn't show that there was one in the bodily fluid. They haven't shown that the particle that they end up pointing at actually fits the definition of a virus. Like they've literally done nothing whatsoever. They just point at something and say that's the virus and that's why the cells broke down.

And like we say it's like saying if Santa exists, I think that this year. So if Santa exists, when I wake up in the morning, I'll find presents under the Christmas tree. And then you find the presents under the Christmas tree. And you say, there, Santa exists. And we isolated him right here in the living room. That's literally how ridiculous it is. Absolutely is.

It's a circular logic that is there. You know, we see the effect that we say would come from this virus. And so there's the effect. I still don't see the virus that's there. But we see the effect. So that was caused by the virus that I imagined that was out there. Yeah, exactly. So it's not like sometimes people try to make it sound like, oh, we're being, we have these impossible standards.

You know, people like myself that say that pharaology is illogical and that they haven't shown viruses to exist. But we're literally just asking for logical scientific evidence, you know, the scientific method. It's not something we made up. It's based on just simple logic. you know, if you want to do an experiment and demonstrate that something causes an effect, you need to actually have the thing at the beginning of the experiment and make sure that it's present in your experimental, you know, whether it's cell lines or people or whatever you're experimenting with,

and then you have to have a control group, and you don't expose them to the thing of interest, and you keep everything else the same, randomization should be used, you know, to help control for confounding variables. So, you know, that's what ought to be done and what a logical person would do. And then what they do in virology is just completely not even in the, it's not even close. It's, yeah, so it's not even like. And we just project that onto them.

We're like, oh, they're scientists. So obviously they follow the scientific method, things that you just mentioned. They've isolated something and then they use that they expose a population to that thing. And then they have a control population that they make sure is not exposed. to that thing so they can see the effect of that thing. Instead, what they're looking at is they're looking at effects. And they're saying, we know that there's something that we call a virus that is causing that. Therefore, since we see that effect, the virus is there.

I can't see the virus. I can't find the virus. It truly is amazing when you look at it. And I got to say, you know, that's one of the things I said is I've followed this aerology stuff. All of this pandemic stuff, there was so many things like this. that just didn't add up. You know, you know, when you create a science fiction world, you have to have a certain

consistency there, or the movie or the book or whatever is really awful. You know, it just doesn't have any logical continuity. And that's what I was seeing with virology all the time. And again, when I got the book from the Bailey's, no more pain, the last pandemic, it all came together. It's like, okay, now I understand why this stuff didn't make any sense. because they're just making it up as they go along. They're making it up.

It is logically inconsistent. And it's funny you mentioned like movies or stories made up because that's one of the things they use to condition us to constantly reinforce. And there's so many movies out there or television shows where they're slipping in a reference to a virus or a so-called vaccine. And we see it in the news lately. It seems like every day or two I hear that, you know, somewhere around the world they're talking about a new supposed outbreak i think now in the

united states so they're talking about measles again right now um in europe they've been uh you know culling animals over foot and mouth disease and before that they're probably still doing it uh supposed sheeppox and goatpox virus killing millions of animals they did it well they were doing it with the bird flu hoax as well in the u.s apparently over 100 million birds oh it's amazing what they did and In terms of driving up the price of food. And the absurdity of going in and saying, well, you know, even with their, if you follow their science fiction world that they've created, how in the world does it make sense to go in when you got one animal that you tested positive? And let's say that just say that your test is right and that you did find this disease. Why would you kill all the chickens on this farm?

Even the ones that didn't test positive with all this stuff. It made absolutely no sense. None of this stuff does. Yeah. And but I think one of the reasons it's so important for people to know the truth that there isn't even a virus is there are people out there. They will argue, you know, it has to be done. It's for the safety because, you know, they'll say even if, well, typically they don't even test very many of the birds. They'll test a few.

And if they find, get one or two positives, that's enough. They'll say we have to call them all. So, yeah. I mean, but some people believe, like, yeah, we have to because even if you did test more and there are negatives, well, you know, it could be, we could have missed the virus in some cases because the test not perfect. And, well, we just can't take the chance. And we have these obligations to our trading partners is that's what gets used, you know. Well, as many people said, though, if you've got a bird that's there and you've got other birds, whether they're contaminant or not, if they survive, you know, a rational approach would be if you, if you took this out to. logical conclusion, you can believe that the virus, the virology was correct, you would say,

let's just isolate this entire group here. And then the ones that survive are going to have a natural immunity to it. And we'll start breeding them. And yet they don't do that. None of it makes any sense. It's like, I think you've got a different agenda here. Yeah, I agree totally with you. I don't think it makes any sense at all. That's true. Yeah. When you talk about the cytopathic effects, and of course it's got its own little acronym the CPE. It looks for visible cell damage. But as they point out, when I did research on this, it could be from cellular stress. It could be from toxicity in the sample. It could be from bacterial contamination because they're not isolating this stuff. So all those things could lead to

a false positive because we're just looking for damage. We're not looking for the thing that's causing the damage. We're just looking for an effect. And we haven't isolated a cause. Exactly. Yeah. And I mean, there have been experiments. Well, the funny thing is from one of the earliest experiments or one of the earliest studies where they started using this approach was in 1954 with the John Ender's study on the supposed measles virus. And they in that study, it's really funny because, I mean, they didn't even identify specific particle. They were talking about, you know, using the word virus and making it sound like they had. identified an agent, but then they didn't even have an image. They weren't even pointing at a picture of something, anything specific. And they admitted in the study that they had done, I don't remember if they used the word control, but they did the same or similar experiment where they didn't add any material that they thought was infected, and they still got the cytopathic effects because they

stress the cells, the cell line that they're using. They stress the cells, the cells breakdown, and that's what they use as evidence. So they said that we identified another agent, even in our uninfected culture. And they admitted that what they were doing, it wasn't conclusive, but somehow this study, even to this day, will still be cited as though that's, you know, the foundational evidence for the alleged measles virus. But if you go back and you read it, and we always encourage as many people as possible that are willing to, please go and look at these foundational studies for yourselves. You know, I'm not asking anybody to take my word for it. And they set themselves up as a priesthood that, you know, you wouldn't understand this.

So don't look. You'll just misunderstand it. So trust us. We are the science. And don't do the investigation yourself. That's also a big red flag, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. that's and that's it so that's the antidotes for as many people as possible to actually go and look at the studies or at the very least you know review the freedom of information responses and look at the work of people like zama mark bailey and mike stone and the other people you know tom i'm

cowen and antie Kaufman and learn at least learn about the issue but yeah the studies some of them are harder to read than others some of them are more complicated than others but i didn't have a background in the this when I started out, I had to learn as I went along. And it, you know, if you do read them, it's the methods section. That's what you have to read. You can't just read what it says in the abstract or, you know, because they'll tell you that conclusion. Yeah. But how did you get to that conclusion? That's the key. Yeah. It's like abstract art. You know, it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of what is actually going on to study. You have to read the methods. And then you see, okay, what did you actually do? And then you see there's no logic.

They didn't adhere to the scientific method. And when it comes to the supposed genomes, because that's one of the other pieces of evidence, people say, what are you talking about? You know, there's thousands or millions of these, you know, supposed genomes uploaded in databases, computer versions of them. And that's where you find out, too,

when you read the methods, that these are just computer models. and what they do is they'll have tens of thousands or millions of smaller sequences that they supposedly detected in the bodily fluid, sometimes even from the cell culture they take it. But I'll just back up a little. So what they do is they'll add an enzyme to a sample, like if they had some lung fluid, this is what they did when they first came up with the SARS-Co-2 genome. They had lung fluid from a patient. and they add an enzyme, and that's to break open any cells,

and the idea is that if there were viruses, too, would open up the cells so they can release the genetic material, the RNA or the DNA. And then they extract out all the RNA or DNA, depending on what kind of virus they think they're looking for. So you're getting all the RNA or DNA from the patient, any bacteria or fungi, stuff they might have breathed in. Like, you know, you don't know where it's coming from is the point. And then they detect millions or at least tens of thousands of sequences.

In the first study by Fanmu and her team, it was over 56.5 million sequences that they detected. And then they feed them into software. And in that study, they use two different softwares. and they have the software look for places where sequences will overlap each other to create longer strings. And so the one software came up with over 1.3 million different longer strings, longer codes. And the other software came up with over 365,000. So they didn't even get the same set of results. And then the researchers chose the longest of all those sequences.

And they said, that's our reference, that's our referenced genome for SARScope 2. That's literally how anybody can go and find the paper by Fanwu. I forget the exact title right now. But they could always email me. But yeah, that's how they came up. But they can't show that even one of those sequences came from any particular particle at all, let alone something fitting the definition of a virus. It's just a complete, it's just a computer model.

Yeah. You need to look at how the sausage is made, you know, and that's about politics as well as science. That's what Ms. Mark said. You don't want to see how the sausage is made. Well, you do want to see how the sausage is made because they're having us for lunch when you look at this stuff. You know, going back to the inconsistencies, I'm reminded as we're talking about this, they would say, well, you know, the virus particles are unbelievably small. And yet at the same time, they're telling us to wear a cloth mask, right?

Any kind of cloth mask? And it was so clear for all of us. This is just a touch point for everybody. If you think that there's real science behind this stuff, remember the mask. That was really where the mask kind of slipped on their virology stuff because at that point, you know, I remember playing over and over again people put on a mask and then they'd blow smoke through it. And it's like, okay, you're telling us the viral particles are much smaller than the smoke particles that are there.

And you're not really specific about what kind of mask we've got to have. have and the mask doesn't have to fit tightly around our face, any of this stuff. It was simply about psychological compliance. That was all it was really about. And it made as much sense as one person came up with an analogy. That's like telling people that you're going to put a hurricane fence up to keep the mosquitoes out, right? A big chain link fence. And that really was what they were talking about.

And folks, when you start digging deeper into it, as Christine has done, you start to see through the methodology that they have. How did they create this genetic sequence that they're testing for? Well, she just explained that to you. Or how do they isolate this stuff? Well, they don't really. And so there's all these, when they push back on all this stuff, they say, well, you know, we don't go through this whole laborious process of doing it in a laboratory because it takes too long. And we've got to have a biosafety level lab that's there. It's very expensive.

And it takes a very long time for that to happen. So we can just do it right away with a PCR and just wave our hands. And, of course, I've talked about the PCR stuff until I'm blue in the face. You know, what an absolute fraud that is. And so, of course, when you look at this, there's not any of it that really a true science can hang a hat on. And it's kind of interesting, I think, Christine, we go back and we look in the 1990s, you had some descendants of Louis Pasteur who found his diary. And they found all kinds of fraudulent stuff that was there.

He is the father of microbiology, is the father of this fraud that we're seeing here. Yeah, back then they were doing, they were always doing very illogical, silly things. So he was using different methodology. And one of the things they would do is take disease tissue from a patient that had something that they thought was an infectious disease. And then drill a hole in the head of an animal and inject. that disease tissue into their brain, and then if the animal had similar reaction, they would say, oh, there we showed that it's a virus. I mean, anybody can see that if you do that to an animal, you know, we just call these studies, animal torture studies. And that's what you see. And it's not

just phorology. It's also when you look at studies where they're supposedly showing that some sort of bacteria is pathogenic. A lot of them are just a horrific animal torture studies where they'll do unnatural things. Often put them to sleep, they inject them, they'll, you know, type them up, Fauci's Beagles. If I'm thinking of Fauci's Beagles, they got called out of. Yeah, exactly. That's exactly this sort of thing that you see throughout the literature, whether it's viruses

or bacteria that I don't think anyone's challenging, whether they exist. but the issue is that they haven't been shown to be pathogenic to actually cause illness. So they're always doing, there's always glaring problems in all the research throughout the whole history, whether it's with viruses or bacteria. They often won't have any sort of comparison group at all. Like you should have a proper control. And of course you can't do it in virology because they don't even have the thing of interest. So you can't have a control that has everything but the thing of interest.

And with the bacteria, those studies also, though they still have problems because often they won't use purified bacteria or they don't, they often just don't have any sort of control group at all. And then like I said, when they go to expose the animal, they typically don't let it happen in a natural way. I mean, sometimes they do. But often you'll see them injecting the animals, sometimes in the chest or the abdomen. just doing horrific things. It's like, that's not, that doesn't reflect your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that we just naturally spread these things to each other, you know, just through normal day-to-day living. We're not going around injecting each other with bacterial cultures. So it's irrelevant. Like, they're just literally irrelevant in valid studies. It

doesn't reflect what you claim that you're, you know, what you're studying. That's right. And when you go back to where this all started, again, with Louis Pasteur, there were a lot of unethical things that he's been called out for, many unscientific things that happened. And he was called out on it by people like Robert Koch, who the Germans rally behind quite a bit there. But also, there was an alternative theory that was put out by Beauchamp, if I'm pronouncing his name correctly, the terrain theory where he said, no, we're not looking at a particular

microbiome that is causing this. it's the general environment. He called it the terrain theory. And that really is kind of what they're doing when they look at the cytopathic effects. They're really looking at a mix of a lot of different things. And they're not necessarily the things that are causing the disease, but there are things that are causing cellular damage.

And so what he was doing when he looked at it, he said not necessarily the bacteria and certainly not the viruses. But this is something that is a mixture of a lot of different factors that are there. And they just simplified it all and said, no, we're looking for a particular microbe or a virus or something like that. And we're going to isolate that and we're going to kill that and that's going to get rid of the disease.

And so it's a very, you know, they went with that line of reasoning that Pascal put out there. And then once they decide that's going to be the standard that we're going to pursue, now they ruthlessly shut out all the alternatives. Just like we saw it during the COVID fraud, you're not going to be allowed to try any other treatments other than the vaccine that were lining up for you and on and on. You know, they have a very narrow and flexible path that they're going to take with all this and nothing else will be considered. That's not science. That's, yeah, and that was exactly what I had experienced with the public health establishment before the COVID nonsense began,

because I was very focused on water fluoridation at that time. I was, you know, very concerned about they're adding literally hazardous waste to public drinking water, and they're calling it a great public health achievement. And then you find out it has arsenic and lead and all sorts of other contaminants on top of the fluoride itself. And then you find out they don't have any, they never had any randomized controlled trials. They don't have any human experiments at all to show that it's safe or effective. I mean, I could go on and on. There's no control of the dosing. Yeah. And the evidence that does. I've said so many times it's like even if you had proven that this was safe and effective,

there's no control of dosing if you're going to dump it in the water supply. That makes no sense at all. It's like the masks. Yeah, it goes into the environment. Meanwhile, if you read the material safety data sheets for the fluoride additive, it tells you right on it, don't let it go into water supplies. That's one of the things you'll see on some of them, and they're putting it in the drinking water. The workers hate to have to deal with it because it's a very dangerous chemical.

And anyway, I'm going off on a tangent about the water fluoridation, but... No, but let's talk about that for a moment because you're in Canada. What is the situation with that in Canada? Well, so I, for about 10 years before the COVID nonsense began, that's what I was very focused on. And then when the COVID stuff began, I put that aside because I decided years ago, I'm just going to focus on one thing at a time just for my mental health. So I'm not the most up-to-date person. But, you know, I can still talk about it.

And one of the things that happened in those years was a federal lawsuit occurred against the EPA. So the Floyd Action Network and some other groups sued EPA. And the focus was on neurological effects. And they won, finally, after a very long battle. And then the Trump Department of Justice. comes in and restarts it and appeals it. Yeah. And so that's really where we are in the U.S. And Canada, is it widely done, I guess, there as well? Flores. The last I've heard, it was somewhere maybe around 45% or so of Canada, of Canadians, were getting fluoridated water because it's

a municipal decision in Canada the same way as it is in the States. And from what I understand of what happened in the lawsuit there in the U.S., and this was like a seven or eight year lawsuit that dragged on, and then the federal judge agreed that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to brains. And the reason, apparently I was listening to Michael Connett, who was the lawyer and for the Floyd Action Network, he's the son of Paul Connett, who's one of the people who began the Floyd Action Network. He was explaining that what the appeal was based on the fact that the judge, he wanted to have the most up to date, the best quality evidence, and they knew there was a federal report that

was going to be coming out. So he wanted to put the lawsuit on hold so that they could have finally get the results of that report because they felt that was going to. to be the best quality evidence, a review that was going to be coming out. So he put it on hold and then made the decision that, you know, he agreed that it was an unreasonable risk to brains. And then apparently the grounds for the review, now there's the government said, well, that's a problem because neither side had really wanted it. It was the judge that initiated that that said, hey, I want to put this on hold.

I want to wait until we get that review and get the highest quality evidence for me to make my decision on. And that was the basis. So it wasn't based on the merits. It was more of a procedural thing. They were saying the judge shouldn't have done that because in the U.S. justice system is adversarial and the judge isn't supposed to, you know,

he's supposed to let the parties make the arguments and go off of what they say. They're not supposed to project their own wishes or opinions onto things. So that was, it wasn't based on the merits at all. So now the judge apparently has to go back in time, pretend that years, you know, in this later evidence, that he doesn't know about it. And he has to go back in decision based on what had, you know,

back several years in time, what he had known at that point. So I don't know what's going to happen next. It's crazy, but it's a typical thing we see with government. You know, what is the EPA? It's supposed to protect the environment. Instead, they're polluting the, the environment, the environmental pollution agency. Literally, I have a memo on my website from the EPA from years ago.

It was someone high up in the EPA. And she was admitting to someone that, yeah, you know, we had this problem with this hazardous waste that was really, you know, difficult and expensive to dispose of because it's from the phosphate fertilizer industry and I think other industries as well. They have this chemical called hydrofluorosilic acid that eats through parking lots. find videos, news reports, like in Florida, for example, where it's spilled from a truck and it's literally eating through the parking lot. That's how corrosive it is. And they would have to come with the hazmat suits. So she's like, yeah, we had this problem, this disposal problem. And now we have a

solution. We can put it in the drinking water. It's going to be pre-dental care for poor people is one of the ways they spin it. Yeah, we know, we can't, not everybody can afford dental care. and they're just completely obsessed with fluoride, you know, not. Yeah. It's just fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, fluoride. In your toothpaste, your mouthwash, you put it on your teeth, you know, professional treatments. And now it's MRN. That's what she said.

So now we've gone from fluoride to MRNA. And Trump won't put that everywhere. He began his first day of his new administration this time, talking about how they're going to have artificial intelligence, design MRNA vaccines for you personally. So I was like, yeah, great, here we are. This is the new threat, AI, and he's going to combine it with the old threat. Yes.

Put them on steroids. Yeah. It's crazy what is happening with this. Well, the key is that they, first of all, you need to understand that this idea, this ethical idea, of first, do no harm, is dead. They don't care about that at all. And so knowing that they don't care about harming you, you need to do your own research. That means even when you get prescribed a pharmaceutical drug, you always need to do your own research on that

because some of them have some very nasty side effects that they don't talk about that are hidden. So you need to do your own research. And then in the bigger picture, you know, what we have happening right now, comment a little bit about your take on this, Christine Massey. I've told my audience what I think about what is happening with this focus on Fauci. I think he is a safe scapegoat for them.

and what is your take on that? Well, the way I look at it, and I think I can speak for some of my colleagues as well, is it keeps people in the virus and contagion camp because, you know, it's, oh, gain a function. You know, they're avoiding reality, which is that they haven't even shown that there was a virus. He didn't have a virus to gain function on. It keeps people in this false dichotomy. Was it a natural virus, or did they make a man-made virus? or something leaked from a lab, whatever it is, you're still believing in viruses and contagion.

You still believe that there might be a need for vaccines or toxic antiviral drugs or distancing or closing when there's an emergency, an outbreak and what have you. So it leaves all the foundational lies in place, which have led to unimaginable carnage throughout our lives. And it's not just people. Of course, it's the pets and the livestock and even fish they're vaccinating. You know, and so if the public catches on to the truth, that all germ theory is just, it's all based on pseudoscience. They don't have any valid scientific experiments at all. Yeah, there's going to, you know, it's just a huge.

Whole thing collapses. So, yeah, let's come up with this. Here's two false alternatives and let you fight over these two false alternatives, but don't look at the rest of the stuff. But, of course, it also, I think, gets them off the hook. And you see when they start doing this, there's a tremendous amount of partisan blinders going on here. You know, they will focus on what the other party did and completely hold their people harmless with all this. And yet the response that we see over and over again to this type of thing is, well, it was real. And next time we'll do it sooner and harder and faster than we did this time.

And that was our mistake. We just didn't do enough quickly enough. And so they're laying the foundation for the next time they do this to us. Absolutely. And I mean, the way I look at it, there's people all around the world in every country that are responsible for what happened. None of them did. They either intentionally went along with a hoax or they didn't do their due diligence. It was nobody's job in Canada or the U.S. to make sure, like, there's actually legit evidence.

The world just went along with a computer model genome from China. Like, that doesn't make any sense at all. And, you know, I mean, I often say, too, there was no due process. because nobody ever came. We were just ordered over the television, basically, to stay home to this. Don't do that. Nobody came to us with something addressed to us saying, you know, we think this situation's happening and we're asking it to stay home

and gave us a chance to look at the evidence and to rebut it and have a trial. There was none of that. It was just some clown on television is saying, you know, this is how it's going to be. And the police enforced it. And meanwhile, yeah, across. martial law, yeah. Yeah, martial law. And a colleague has been going to the police stations

and us challenging them, like, show us that you even had a copy of a signed order. It turns out they didn't even have anything in writing. They didn't have anything to show that there was a virus, no evidence there. And they don't even have anything in writing to show that there actually was a signed order. Not that it would have been legitimate anyway. But, yeah, we were just basically all treated like slaves and told this is how it's going to be. And to me, well, I can say, for one thing, I'm not familiar with your laws in the United States, but in Canada, in the

criminal code, there's Section 229C, which says culpable homicide is murder. And it says, if you do anything for an unlawful object, for example, injecting people and testing people with fraudulent tests and no informed consent, ignoring all the danger signals, you know, you're getting people injected, all based on this fraud. And if people end up dying, even though you didn't try to make people die, but they died as a result, that's called culpable homicide. And it's murder according to their criminal code. So this is something I've been pointing out to politicians and reminding them,

like, you guys are so far out of line and people are dead because of you. So there's a lot of people. It's not just Fauci and getting back to the Fauci issue. There's people all around the world that are complicit in this. And the way I look at it, a lot of people should, they belong in prison for a long time. That's right. Because they cost a lot of harm. But if they want to make it about this one guy, and of course, he was given an accommodation by Trump,

and he was given a pardon by Biden. And so they're going to kind of inoculate him from that. You know, they get immunity. They get legal immunity from lawsuits, and he gets immunity from jail. And he don't get immunity from anything. But this is the way that it's going to go. and they're just laying the foundation to do it all over again. And so that's the key thing.

We need to understand the basis of the fraud. We understand how the PCR tests work and how they are abusing that and how they're abusing the entire science of virology and how that has not been, does not have a scientific basis that is based on measurement and clinical testing and any of that stuff. None of that is happening. And so the key thing that we can do is try to get people to take a look at this. As you're pointing out, once they go down this road, they say, well, we're not going to bother with informed consent.

We're not going to bother with the law. We're just going to declare an emergency and do what we want. They get really sloppy and it gets worse and worse. As you pointed out, where's the order for this? Well, we don't have an order. We just heard that's what we're supposed to do. So we go do it to people and try to stop us. And it just contingent if we don't call them out on it, if we don't pull this back.

And if people don't understand what was done to them and get angry about it, they're going to keep doing it. And it's going to get worse every single time. I 100% agree. And I think to laughing at them, too, I see a lot of colleagues that, well, they keep trying. They tried with hantavirus and Ebola virus. They've been trying to people bribed up again and telling us, you know, a 40% death rate. And then, you know, then they switched. I think they say Ebola is 50% death mortality rate.

And people just weren't buying into it. And they were, I've seen many people sharing screenshots. where like thousands of people are just laughing at them and respond. You know, you see the laughing emoji and people aren't getting scared. And I think that's one of our most powerful weapons. I think there's definitely a place for anger. I definitely get angry. And also just laughing them because I don't think some of these people actually get off

when you're upset about what they're doing, it makes them feel more powerful. But when we laugh at them and just show how stupid, you know, your evidences, then that just makes them feel, uh, the rug out from under them. Well, Saul Olensky said that in his rules for radicals. He said satire is the most devastating weapon because there's no answer to it. And the best thing you can do is laugh at these emperors who don't have a pair of pants on. And just point that out.

And let's start laughing. And so everybody needs to laugh these people off the stage. Yeah, laugh them right out of the news cycle, left them off the stage. And again, also, there's a place for trying to hold people accountable. And maybe even somebody will end up in prison one of these days. Who knows? That's right. I'm not sure how that's going to happen.

Well, it's so important. You know, so many times we see things, whether it's about cosmology or some other thing, it's like, well, we know this or that. Well, how do you know any of that stuff? Please explain it to me. Explain to me like I'm an eight-year-old. Yeah, exactly. Because if you can't explain to somebody like they're an eight-year-old,

you don't really understand it yourself. Right. If you really understand it, you can put it in very simple terms and you can demonstrate it to people. But if it's just so complicated, you wouldn't understand is the answer. Well, then I think there's a different agenda that's going on here. So thank you so much for pulling the curtain back and for being the person. The emperor has no clothes. They have no science with any of this stuff. It is just naked tyranny.

Thank you so much for doing that, Christine. And tell us before you go. Give us again, we've had that up underneath your name, I think, the website that's But you have a, that'll take people to your substack, that tiny URL. Yeah. Yeah. So from there, if they scroll down in almost any newsletter, they'll find the links to my website. And they'll also find articles and videos from my colleagues who go into a lot more detail than I do about various, you know, virus hoaxes and whatnot.

So. Well, thank you for taking point on this and doing that hard work and putting all this together. It is a wealth of information that you have collected for us. And people need to take advantage of that and educate themselves because when we let them get away with these lies, there's no end to it. And they get worse and worse, as we see going along. And they're laying the foundation for even more lies right now, even as they're telling us, oh, look, we've got a document release showing this and showing that. No, you're still playing that game with us. And that is really where we are at this point in time.

People need to question the real science and hold it up to the standard of science. science never advances without skepticism. We shall always be skeptical about what these people are saying instead of just accepting it on blind faith. Thank you so much, Christine. Always great talking to you. Thank you. You too.

You as well. Take care. God bless. 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 hire. 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. The Davidnightshow.com.