Bustin’ “Viruses” With the Baileys

Last week, I had the absolute honor and pleasure of speaking with two people that I greatly admire and respect in Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey. I have spoken with the Baileys regularly over the last two years through email and during projects like Monkeypox Mania and The End of Covid, but this was the first time that I have had an extended conversation with just the two of them. I was very excited for the opportunity, and I had an amazing time over the course of the three hours we conversed. While the interview itself was about two hours long, our time together flew by. During our discussion, we covered many different aspects related to how I got involved with researching the fraud of germ theory and virology as well as the problems with the allopathic model.

Mike Stone is the creator of viroLIEgy.com, which scrutinizes the world of virology and germ theory and exposes their gaping scientific and logical flaws. Mike is completely self-taught and woke up to the problems of virology after a particularly saddening personal experience. 

Once the COVID-19 fraud began, Mike felt compelled to share his own research findings and now has one of the world’s most extensive repositories of information surrounding alleged viruses. Mark and I talked with him for 2 hours and the time just flew by. He is honourable, humble and one of the kindest people you will ever meet.

Here is what he said about:

  • the censorship of his work
  • his background and interaction with allopathic medicine
  • his family experience with vaccines
  • the catalyst that started his virology research
  • his decision to speak out publicly
  • accusations of being a “psy-op”
  • the “diagnosis” and “testing” problem within the allopathic paradigm and how to move forward

and much more!

You can find our interview at the Baileys’ amazing site DrSamBailey.com or at their excellent Substack.

Here are the direct links:

Home

https://drsambailey.substack.com/

I hope that you enjoy the conversation as much as I did. 🙂

32 comments

  1. Mike. Hi. Thanks for all you’ve done over the last 4 years – I’ve read and listened to a lot of it. In your talk with Sam and Mark you told us the history with your mother in law. I’m really interested in the work of Dr Hamer – German New Medicine – and can see where that would fit her situation at the time. The key for me was hearing TB – TB bacteria is what out amazing bodies’ use to break down what allopathy calls cancerous tumours. Have you looked into GNM?
    I’ve asked Sam and Mark via a contact form if they’ve looked into GNM and had no reply and also asked Tom Cowan (who again has helped me a lot) and he fobbed me off. I’m suspicious by nature after decades looking into health and the con of allopathic medicine – I worry when people get stuck on one way of looking at things out of two choice (Germ v Terrain , left v right etc) as those simple choices are always the method of hiding the actual truth which isn’t half way between but something completely different that is never mentioned.
    GNM comes with enormous evidence and I’d really like to know if you have either not looked into it or rejected it.
    Thanks
    Graham Abbott
    Devon Uk

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi Graham,

      Thanks for the reply! I haven’t done a deep dive into GNM yet. I am somewhat familiar with it. I believe that there is truth in some aspects, especially regarding the power of the mind in order to bring about disease. Far too often, the mental aspect is disregarded as having a big impact on one’s health.

      However, there are some issues I have with GNM. From what I’ve seen, GNM puts so much emphasis on the mind that it tends to overlook the other side of the equation regarding physical impacts, toxins, and stressors. I have spoken with some who are well-versed in GNM and asked for any scientific evidence supporting the claims that they make regarding conflict shocks, and I received anecdotes instead of any scientific studies. I would need to see actual evidence derived from the scientific method in order to take the claims GNM makes more seriously.

      At this point in time, I believe that there is truth in GNM. However, I personally believe it goes too far into the mental side and overlooks the physical. I believe that there must be balance. I do plan to look into GNM more when I get time in the future. Thanks for the question. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thanks for that. I haven’t seen one GNM proponent who has suggested it’s the answer to everything – of course we can still be poisoned. Dr Hamer did enormous amounts of study but, of course, was shunned, deleted and sued by the allopathic and medical scientific communities for obvious reasons. I suggest looking into it more rather than quickly dismissing it. There certainly aren’t the false scientific studies (every drug trial I have ever looked at was flawed or just plain dishonest) we are trained to look for but the evidence is there from what I’ve read.
        His way of looking at what allopathy calls cancer seems to fit so many of my friends’ and family’s experiences that it can’t be ignored. After all allopathy has no credible explanation for cancer or its treatment and Tom Cowan has decided cancer is the body’s way of storing toxins but without any evidence. Dr Hamer’s work needs further study without doubt but people also need to know f its existence as they are being murdered by allopathic medicine tight now.
        All the best.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I definitely am not discounting GNM. I feel that there is some truth there. It’s just a matter of figuring out how much. I do plan to investigate more in the future. 🙂

        Like

      3. I understand your concerns. However, Dr. Hamer did have his own degree of scientific skepticism to satisfy, as he began to suspect a connection between the mind and the body in issues of disease, as many of his patients reported the same kinds of conflict-related issues in relation to particular symptoms. He eventually found a thoroughly scientific method to confirm his cases — brain scans — which were actually able to show that certain areas of the brain changed corresponding to certain symptoms. When a patient had successfully worked through his issues, a subsequent scan showed the area had cleared. Now since there are clearly other causes of disease, I think that Hamer’s approach is a good one for attaining a diagnosis of the emotional conflict-related kind. There are not many hard references out there to consult (at least in English), but here is a good one-reference source that someone who is clearly interested in promoting the value of Hamer’s work has lovingly compiled and updated over time. It also clearly correlates various symptoms and issues with the scans, although there’s a learning curve for assimilating the aspects of this approach. Here’s a link to the latest version, and there are several other languages available.

        http://wordpress.p365067.webspaceconfig.de/

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Our Lord the Sun works with lessons, and therein is found love and forgiveness. The lesson that the three wonderful people in this video still have to learn is the lesson of Bong Han Kim, his discovery and characterisation of the Primo Vascular System, the DNA organ, the first and foremost organ in the body. The Germ Theory and the Contagion Myth are dead, the future of organized medicine is in the PVS. And those with as great a golden heart as Sam’s will also take the time to learn the personal story of Bong Han Kim, surely one of the greatest tragedies of talent in the face of injustice in our time.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Mike
    I commented here yesterday and it hasn’t appeared? Could you email me and explain why you don’t want my comment? It was well intentioned. Sam’s administrator has blocked me from the web pages when I asked a similar question there – perhaps well intentioned questioned aren’t allowed?? (I can’t find any contact information to even ask the Bailey’s why I’ve been blocked.)
    You’ve all helped me so much over the last 3 years – I’ve listened and read with good faith and now you won’t even let me post a comment?
    Thanks
    Graham Abbott
    Devon UK

    Like

    Reply

  4. Mike
    I commented here yesterday and it hasn’t appeared? Could you email me and explain why you don’t want my comment? It was well intentioned. Sam’s administrator has blocked me from the web pages when I asked a similar question there – perhaps ben well intentioned questioned aren’t allowed??
    You’ve all helped me so much over the last 3 years – I’ve listened and read with good faith and now this is pretty frustrating.
    Thanks
    Graham Abbott
    Devon UK

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Hi Graham,

      Was it the GNM comment that I responded to? I apologize as it has been rather busy here with the holiday season, and WordPress can put real comments in the spam box for some reason. I will check there and see if I find any.

      Like

      Reply

  5. I’m reading the discussion between Mike and grumpybrian with great interest! My own comment, that you can see further above, was posted yesterday, and as the day wore on and it didn’t appear, I was starting to think Mike had rejected it, just like grumpybrian seems to have thought his was rejected. Now all the comments appear, and all is well, with Mike’s explanation. Further though, the comment I posted is the exact same comment that got me banned from the Baileys site! Similarly it seems, to how grumpybrian got banned there! Well, ain’t that something?

    I must say a big thanks to Mike for being there and engaging with his commenters. That’s a big plus in Mike’s favour, the time he takes to do this is hugely appreciated. I’m mystified as to why the Baileys first deleted the comment and then when I expressed surprise about the deletion in a new comment, banned me. And as I see, I’m not the only one to experience this.

    I had decided that the most likely reason the Baileys were behaving this way was that the comment was off topic. The topic is the discussion between them and Mike, my comment brings in new info that isn’t directly relevant to that discussion. That’s my best guess.

    I must add that although my comment about Bong Han Kim and the PVS may be off topic to the video at hand, it is very much on topic in the greater endeavour of exposing virology, as the knowledge of the nature and the implications of the PVS quite completely undermines virology. The PVS and its sanal-cell cycle validate the work of Bechamp, Lepeshinskaya and Gaston Naessens.

    If grumpybrian reads this, please post a link to something that discusses GNM as more than the mind-to-disease model. My impression of GNM is similar to Mike’s. I would be very interested in reading what GNM has to say about toxins and poisoning, such as chemical, electromagnetic, the weather, nutrition, stress factors, etc.

    Thank you, Mike, for being there and all you do. Greatly appreciated! Best wishes and Happy New Year 2024!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Hi. For a starting place try Robert Jardine who’s helping me with things. I came across him from his talk to ‘Adrian’ on you tube – https://youtu.be/mKqG47cWc9s?si=Zc9KfhDfkGtsyk9d. I spoke to Adrian myself a few years ago about the simple changes I made in 2018 that revolutionised my life after 20 years of disability, tiredness and pain.

      GNM explains the things that GNM explains – obviously we can still be poisoned – as for ‘stress’ – that’s an inexplicable term that can mean anything. I’d suggest looking and reading about it for a while before dismissing it because others, who admit they haven’t looked into it, assume Dr Hamer thought his work covered every single thing that can happen to us.

      Danny Carroll has written an excellent book ‘terminal cancer is a misdiagnosis’ which includes a decent intro to Dr Hamer’s work.

      The Baileys confuse me; I wonder if they’ve flipped onto choosing terrain theory as THE answer because they haven’t looked beyond physical illnesses having a physical causes (which isn’t unusual in this community) and are now republishing books and writing new books based on their new found ‘truth.’ To be banned from even looking at their website because I asked a question that suggested they may need to look further than they have is disappointing.
      Cheers from sunny Devon UK

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Thanks a lot, have now seen the video you linked to. It was good to have the five laws explained. I’ve read about them before, but have forgotten. Three things to say in response. One, the discussion doesn’t add much to the usual gripe about GNM, that it does not address illness from poisoning. Two, GNM is compatible with Terrain Theory. You can think of GNM as a subset of TT, the psychosomatic subset. Three, it is most striking how Dr Cowan’s teaching of hearing the patient’s story aligns with GNM. This is the foundation of his New Medicine Clinic. The close alignment confirms my first contention, that GNM and TT are compatible, since one would broadly think of Dr Cowan as a TT proponent. All very good to know about and I’m happy and grateful that I listened to the discussion in the video.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi Mr. KD,

      Thanks for the comment. I’m sorry that the spam box can interfere with comments here at times. Sadly, I get too busy, and I forget to check. I will try to do better going forward to ensure that the comments don’t get lost.

      I’m not sure why you would have been banned from the Baileys channel. They are very open and honest people. I wonder if they have a moderator who made a mistake.

      Regardless, like you, I’m definitely open to more info on GNM. I have friends who swear by it, and Dr. Lanka is a big supporter, if I remember correctly. I just haven’t really had the time to investigate as much as I’d like.

      Thanks for the kind words and support, and best wishes and a Happy New Year 2024 to you as well. 🙂

      Like

      Reply

      1. No need to berate yourself with trying to “do better going forward”, as my impatience had more to do with being banned by the Baileys than your speed of accepting comments. You’re doing fine as you are.

        In terms of going forward, it’s very good that you engage with your commenters. The good doctors on the no-virus team are constrained by their stance of maintaining a professional separation from the “lay public”, an attitude that doesn’t afflict an independent researcher like you. This stands you in good stead: we have a long time ahead with many developments to come and you’re doing everything right to be positioned well in the course of what happens next.

        Please see also my latest reply to grumpybrian as I do want to get an important point across. Many thanks, always!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks, I definitely love to engage with people. I find that we can all help each other grow. With the Baileys, they receive far more comments than I do, and I know it is very hard for them to keep up with and respond to everyone. I wish I had further insight into what happened with you being banned. I have to imagine it was a mistake. I will look for your latest reply to grumpybrian. 🙂

        Like

  6. “Virologists have the propensity to look at something and not understand what it is,
    at the same time, look at nothing and tell you everything about it.” – Paul Leo Myelitis.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. Mr. KD – Yes Tom Cowan suggests listening to the patient’s story but what does he do then? Does he help them (doctors don’t heal us – we heal us) find the shock that started the whole sequence that led to the symptoms or does he see, for example, very high BP (which is one of my issues despite being extremely well) and decide the patient needs a physical thing to change in their diet or the need to walk in the sea and take his sea water stuff as he has suggested on his podcasts before.

    There is so much more to GNM than psychosomatic – Dr Hamer found the ‘relays’ in the brain caused by the shocks and could (and others still can) read brain CT scans and diagnose the current physical changes (special biological programmes running – the designed in programmes that help us) and also previous conflict shocks – Danny Carroll’s short book goes into this to some extent.

    Tom’s explanation (story) about cancer is that toxins are stored away so they don’t harm us and as they ‘fill up’ the body starts more storage places to fill. (the obvious answer being he talks to the person and finds the supposed toxin being stored away somehow and then gets them to stop eating it?). This makes no real sense when, for example, 99% of all testicular cancers do not spread from one ball to the other – the role of handedness is covered in GNM – which side of a particular organ or pair of organs is affected by the ‘shock’ is determined by whether we are right or left handed.
    ‘Cancer’ spreading to other organs is covered in GNM because the diagnosis itself from ‘the mighty doctor’ leads to new conflict shocks that start changes in other parts of the body – a breast cancer diagnosis and/or treatment causes a fear of death conflict so the body produces more functional tissue in the lung to help preserve life; allopathy sees that as a cancer spreading to the lungs thus terrifying the person even more.
    An alcoholic stops eating because they only think of drinking so they effectively are starving so the ‘program’ runs to build functional liver tissue to help – allopathy sees that as liver cancer and blames it on the drinking rather than the starving – hence why liver cancer is prevalent in starving African societies that don’t even drink.

    Sometime ago Steve Falconer rubbished GNM on his ‘spacebusters’ podcast by saying he couldn’t understand why every child starting school doesn’t get chickenpox if GNM is right. He says he’s looked into GNM but also seems to think GNM’s answer to chicken pox is as simple as saying ‘going to school causes chickenpox.’ This is utterly ridiculous but that simple statement, made by someone with a huge online presence, stops people even looking into GNM. Tom did something similar when I asked him about GNM – he said he had questioned a patient with cancer and couldn’t find any stressful events so implying GNM was rubbish. I like listening to Tom and he helped me (and so my family) enormously in 2020 but throwaway statements from someone who told me he’s never seriously looked at GNM is bloody annoying as it too puts people off looking at GNM.

    All the time people really are being murdered by allopathic medicine through burn, poison and cut ‘treatments’ while potential help is rubbished by people who haven’t even taken the time to look into it.

    Sorry written too much – it’s bed time and I need to dump it out or I’ll never sleep. All the best.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you for the extended reply, that’s very helpful. I’m afflicted by red spots on my cheek, which has nothing to do with any mental shock, but everything to do with the fact that I’m chronically poisoned by an inflamed tooth with a break in a root, that is beyond treatment, and I refuse to have pulled out. I hope you now see what is meant by GNM not accounting for poisoning. But in the overall context of the insights provided by GNM, this is a minor gripe. I agree that when a poison is not specifically to blame, much if not most illness has a mental source. I find this in myself and others, with flu for instance, which in my case closely follows the two stages described by GNM, and is always traceable to mental stress. In addition, learning (or rather, re-learning) about the physical evidence in the CT brain scans, I’m minded to see a connection between what is happening there and the fact that the PVS, that I refer to in my original comment, is connected to the nervous system and then connects to all cells in the body. Given the DNA and cell regulating activity of the PVS, the physical link between the brain and the organs likely involves the PVS. Much to learn and think about, as we move forward in the more positive direction from the present negative one. So far we’ve been mostly focused on “viruses don’t exist”, and this effort is pretty much done, as all foundational papers of virology have been countered. We’re approaching a time for pursuing alternative studies.

      The PVS will be a key part of such studies, as the entities that are described as viruses are in fact the ‘microzyma’, the active agents of the sanal-cell cycle of the PVS. Dr Cowan’s description of them as ‘breakdown products of the cell’ is incorrect.

      The knowledge of the PVS and its implications qualifies as the most repressed knowledge in science. Knowing how and why that is, is a subject of study in its own right, but I will try to put it succinctly.

      The world is owned, run and manipulated by what can best be referred to as Jesuit-banksters. They control all sides, the capitalist and the communist. In the 1960s, just as Bong Han Kim was surely headed for the Nobel Prize with his work on the PVS, the controllers of Nikita Khrushchev got him to switch from the most interesting native Russian biological model to the Western model of the DNA/cell/virus. North Korea soon followed, with drastic consequences for Bong Han Kim. The Dear Leader accused him of fraud, closed down his institute, and Bong Han Kim was never heard of again. In a place like North Korea, you know what that means: he was either shot or taken to a concentration camp.

      What followed was equally shocking, as all evidence of the PVS was removed from libraries in the West. The pretense then was for decades, that the PVS could not be found because the correct staining procedure for it was not known. It finally took someone in Japan to use regular blue staining (might have been Prussian Blue) to ‘re-discover’ the PVS. In addition, dogged researchers in the West found surviving copies of Bong Han Kim’s publications, some in poor condition, but readable. Several studies in the 2000s confirmed the PVS and steps were taken to study it further. The key publication to read is “Report 3 and 4”, that is found in the Documentation section of IPVS dot org, along with shorter summaries. Also, track down the related Cheung study of 2013.

      There, I hope that I have given everyone reading this enough of a hint about the importance of the PVS to get going.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Yes, Dr. Cowan is not always “on target” nor easy to admit he’s wrong. But your comments about Hamer’s work are spot on, and I have seen the “handedness” factor myself involving a relative of mine.
      I see some comments mischaracterize Dr. Hamer as somehow insisting that the GNM model is the only one for diagnosing disease. He never said that. It is one approach, namely the one that considers psychosomatic-spiritual causes, and can be added to the diagnostic toolkit. Its way of treating patients in an individual approach is also akin to that of homeopathy, which considers subjective factors in attaining a sound profile of the patient’s overall condition. In any case, Dr. Lando at Alfa Vedic, who has himself demonstrated an extraordinary amount of dilligence in making his way through many fields of treatment and inquiry over decades, has said that he was grateful to discover Dr. Hamer’s work years ago, and considered it one of the key elements missing from his own diagnostic wherewithal. It’s not the only approach in the kit, but an important one to include nonetheless. And as you indicate, Hamer’s correlation between brain scans and symptoms is scientific.
      Are you familiar with this book? It’s very impressive and is both a good introduction to GNM as well as a useful “desk reference” which is regularly updated and even available in several languages:
      http://wordpress.p365067.webspaceconfig.de/

      Like

      Reply

  8. I was going to let my last reply to grumpybrian be my last comment here as I don’t want to overburden Mike with the subject I’m bringing up, but I have to post one last time to say two things.

    First, I made a typo: the site to consult is ISPVS dot org.

    Second, I have to be clear what I meant in an earlier reply that Dr Cowan’s claim that “viruses” are the “breakdown products of the cell” is incorrect. What I’m about to say can be confirmed by the study of Bechamp and the PVS.

    Bechamp was right when he claimed that the microzyma is the lowest form of life, not the cell. The cell in its own right is inanimate, it is animated by the action of the microzyma.

    We see this in high res microscopic videos of mitosis, where the microzyma, the misnamed “lipid droplets”, turn the nucleus this way and that way, before making a decision, and “attacking” the nucleus to divide it and its chromosomes.

    A further key observation, is that toxins do not have the capacity to break down a cell, if they are not solvents. The cell is broken down in response to the detection of the toxins by microzyma, the sanals of the sanal-cell cycle in the PVS.

    When an object is broken down, the neat order of the object is replaced by the more chaotic disorder of the broken down parts. The entities we’re told are viruses, do not match this experience, they are too much of an object in their own right, not a broken down piece. Understanding that the cell is broken down by the action of the sanals, the microzyma, we’re led to the conclusion that “viruses” are these agents of the breakdown, not the broken down parts of the cell.

    I hope I’ve made the distinction clear. Dr Cowan’s claim that “viruses” are broken down cellular tissue, unnecessarily hands ammunition to virologists, who can rely on the un-broken-down appearance of the entities as evidence they are active, infective agents. They are active, they are agents, but not infective.

    And with this insight, Bechamp’s famous quote “Nothing is prey to death, all is prey to life” makes perfect sense.

    Now I’m finally done and have said all I had to say as an introduction to this all important subject.

    Like

    Reply

    1. A commenter on the Baileys’ website, where I was able to comment under a new IP and user name, has alerted me that the ISPVS website is no more. I am copying my reply here so that those who read my posts here can access the files:

      Luckily I have downloaded the publications that were on ISPVS years ago and can share them on Google Drive. The “Report 3 and 4” I referred to is available here as a 10MB PDF:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gck6rhfTi_iVNGdJOxwU-23n4swdrDyM/view?usp=sharing

      I have also created a 43MB zipped file of this document and 12 other files, mostly PDFs of other reports by Bong Han Kim and a few more recent related studies. I highly recommend that this file be downloaded and all the contents read by those interested in full understanding of the PVS and Bon Han Kim’s story. Annoyingly, however, because of the file size, Google shows an alert stating the file cannot be scanned for viruses, which understandably will put people off from downloading.

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c4qWrkPeGT04xlomxcG78F0ObeauHi2o/view?usp=sharing

      I wish everyone taking this journey of discovery and education all the very best, as the information I’m sharing is of the greatest importance.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. Mike, if it’s not too much to ask, I would be grateful if you’d be kind enough to alert the Baileys that there is a problem with their moderation. My reply to Donny in the comments section of their latest video about their books has been deleted. Please alert them to this thread of comments, particularly the posts by grumpybrian and me about the deletions and banning. I’m facing a double whammy of censorship: on the one hand original publications on the PVS are not available, on the other my comments regarding it are deleted. Something is amiss. Thank you!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Hello Mike once more! I’ve just checked the Baileys’ website and found that the comment that was deleted has appeared again, plus the comment I posted in response to the deletion, directing Donny over here… Doh! I went there to post for the last time, telling Donny and all interested that the publications I wanted to share in response to ISPVS no longer existing are now available from https://primovascularsystem.wordpress.com. And with that, I really am done. Thank you!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Hi Mike, I would call it resolved, no need to spend time on this. My best guess is that they either have moderation outsourced or are using a less than perfect AI plugin. Either way, the experience I’ve had has taught me how it works, and now I know how to comment and what to expect. There will be practically perfect AI plugins in the near future. BTW, while I’m here, someone there posted links to publications by Seun A- (I forget surname) and they are well worth checking out. All the best and many thanks again!

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Hi Mark,

    I love Virus Mania! It is an excellent book. It’s nice finding fellow Iowans who know the truth about the fraud of virology. I’m happy to meet some time in the future. I’m currently dealing with a back injury that has me somewhat sidelined at the moment. Thanks for reaching out. 🙂

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment