5th November 2023

In our book Virus Mania we warned how the medical industry continually invents epidemics, making billion-dollar profits at our expense. While this often involves inventing new diseases such as the Avian Flu or COVID-19 we are also seeing “old” diseases being touted in the media once again. 
 
One of the latest fear narratives involves the impending return of the dreaded yellow fever, said to be caused by the first ever human “virus” to be isolated in 1927. Once again all roads lead to the need for mass vaccination according to the “experts”. What kind of carnage did this lead to in the past and is yellow fever even a specific entity, let alone caused by a “virus”?  

References

    1. Yellow fever”, World Health Organization
    2. West Nile Virus – Deadly Diseases & Epidemics, New York, 2009
    3. Yellow fever: A brief history of a tropical Virosis”, La Presse Médicale, 2022
    4. Mortality and Morbidity Among Military Personnel and Civilians During the 1930s and World War II From Transmission of Hepatitis During Yellow Fever Vaccination: Systematic Review”, American Journal of Public Health, 2013
    5. What We Weren’t Taught About Hepatitis”, Dr Sam Bailey, 3 Jun 2023
    6. Preventive medicine in World War II (Volume 3), Office of the Surgeon General, Dept. of the Army, 1955
    7. Long-Forgotten Virus Could Return, US Is Not Prepared: Researchers”, The Epoch Times, 24 Oct 2023
    8. Yellow Jack’s Potential Return to the American South”, The New England Journal of Medicine, 19 Oct 2023
    9. Electron Microscopy and Unidentified ‘Viral’ Objects”, Dr Sam Bailey, 16 Feb 2022
    10. Demonstration of yellow fever virus with the electron microscope”, Virology, Aug 1962
    11. Why ALL “Viruses” Originate In Laboratories”, Dr Sam Bailey, 28 Oct 2023 
    12. The etiology of yellow fever”, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1901
Search
Like it? Share.

15 Comments

  1. Isn’t it great how much our governments want to keep us “Safe” by giving us free vaccines forever!

  2. Samantha, I love the new euphemism you coined here, “powers that shouldn’t be”. Thanks.

  3. Thank you Sam, plenty of leads are provided in this video for the curious person to assess legitimacy of Yellow Fever ‘virus’. If a totally pure sample of Yellow Fever ‘virus’ truly existed, one would assume a genuine transmission study would have been done, ie introduce the totally pure ‘virus’ to an animal in the same way a mosquito would to see what happens. Alas, it appears that logical methodology in this field doesn’t get funding !

  4. Dear Sam ,
    An excellent piece of work . Your dedication in bringing the fraud of vaccines to the public is simply wonderful. I could see your intelligence shining through this whole video Thank you very much indeed.

  5. Hi Sam. Another well-presented and logical video that unpacks “The Science” and shows that, yet again, when the surface of the narrative is scratched, there’s nothing much of substance to support the viral existence. Thank you so much for continuing to educate.

  6. So grateful to this. Thank you Dr. Sam and Dr. Mark for your hard work.

  7. One vaccine is enough for life long? Weird… in Brazil is it “recommended” (i.e. in many situations actually demanded) you to have the yellow fever shot every 10 years.
    Dengue, Yellow fever and Zica are known endemic/seasonal deseases in my hometown in Brazil. My mom that worked in the ER as a nurse for decades always told me that every single summer when the ERs are flooded with people with (mainly) Dengue, there’s is a great confusion among the doctors as the synthoms can be just like common flu. Sometimes is easy, but in most cases, the syntoms are so all over the place that it is very hard to set the diagnosis.

  8. This is not a negative comment. Just trying to be helpful. Scientists are like lawyers. They are obsessed with minute details rather than overarching conceptual reasoning. They will use examples of insignificant minutiae to dismiss perfectly valid reasoning. That said, I think you should make sure you are not mixing up micrometers and nanometers. This is trivial because you are doing an excellent job otherwise of exposing the scientific fraud inherent in our material age and it is probably debatable whether these measurements are meaningful in any case. Apologies if it is me who is mistaken.

  9. Thanks for another gem of research. You’re creating a great information reference source to point people to with the short informative videos.

  10. Dr. Bailey ~ very grateful for your videos and all of you on this clear path. Some years of post-grad research, just enough with good instruction many years ago led me to know right away the plandemic was not honest. Naturally as time went along, I found your group, all of you. I did not continue in research, but did work in applied healthcare along-side medical professions, though my training was in psychology (another realm with many problems as we know) in clinics, hospitals and out-patient offices. My question may seem — or be — futile: What can be said to those who don’t want to entertain the facts of false claims about viruses? Case in point, another person I’ve long respected (and continue to) despite the cavalier attitude with which she and so many highly respected professionals in the medical freedom movement dismiss out of hand those who question the existence of viruses. I am referring the Suzanne Humphries. If you can, please view the Children’s Health Defense video of a couple of days ago in which like so many, she laughs this off, rather insultingly. However so many of us know now what has not been shown, the bogus and lacking research methods, the non-adhearance to research design protocols, the circular arguments, etc. What to say to someone like Suzanne Humphries? I realize all of you have had many rounds with similarly intelligent people who take adversarial positions with no sound back-up. I realize it is not your responsibility to prove, I get that. But what can we say to these intelligent people, some of whom are friends, family. Ironically this mirrors what they understand about their position against injections, with all there own reasons, the thinking from which they then do not apply in this regard. Thank you for standing up consistently and with great explanation. Loved the clip of GW and all the humor you include.

  11. I would like to see a video (or several!) exposing the falsity of the claim that vaccines offer any protection at all. The concept of the virus has by now been quite thoroughly debunked. A closer look at claims of efficacy for various vaccines would be very welcome. With vaccines being mandatory for most tropical countries, travel to those countries, in the context of the ever worsening spectre of what vaccines really are, is practically out of the question for anyone that wants to stay healthy. You may counter that if we’ve debunked the virus, we don’t need to debunk the vaccines, but I’m afraid that if pushed, the conspirators will stoop low enough to claim that vaccines are effective even if there is no virus. We’ve seen plenty of similar ill-logic from them over the past few years. Looking at the non-scientific nature of their claims of efficacy would help to pre-empt them.

    @Rodney Leadbeater: I noticed that too! Although, as you suggest, it would hardly matter in the context of the analysis, if it weren’t for the fact the fraudsters will use anything as ammunition against those that expose them.

  12. Hi Rodney, there is no mix up. The units they use in the paper I showed are millimicrons which are the same as nanometers. Millimicrons are no longer used in the modern era, so I said nanometers to keep it in the unit that most people are familiar with. Hope this makes sense.

  13. Thanks Sam, I now know the difference between m “mu” and “mu” m! I assumed it was a typo in the paper, as it was from the distant past. Trust scientists to be opaque! It does seem rather odd that they could measure with nano measurements in the 50s and 60s. I was under the impression with the rise of nano technology in the last 20 years that in practical terms nano just means “as small as can be” (I now know that the nuclear atom is just a theory) and not something that can be accurately measured. Is it possible that these measurements are baloney or could the microscopes really measure in nanometers in the past?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment