Earlier this week, I interviewed Jamie Andrews, leader of the “The Virology Control Studies Project.” He has been making the rounds lately, it’s been a little confusing, so I thought I would see if I could sort things out somewhat. You can find many other interviews on his Substack. I tried to go places that other presenters had not gone and ask actual, technical questions. Here is a brief introduction to our discussion, with background on the issues he is purporting to address. It’s longer than I planned, but if you read it you’ll understand what I mean when I say the “missing virus problem.” — efc
Dear Friend and Reader:
The ‘covid’ crisis has spawned a cohort of skeptics and critics of the dominant medical model, particularly involving viruses and vaccines. Private individuals who have figured out that there are problems with the claims of public health officials have been supported by a growling collective of doctors, scholars and independent citizen investigators who are digging into the issues.
You have met many of them on my program and I correspond with some of them every day. In the years since the lockdown, truly amazing progress has been made understanding the failings of the claims of virologists and public health officials. This reevaluation of germ theory has been the silver lining of the 2020+ disaster.
Those at the spearhead of the missing virus arguments have become well-accustomed to the undermining attempts from those defending the virus model.
Many virus defenders have household names and include top “health freedom” presenters. Their businesses are built around criticizing vaccines and government responses to the claimed viral outbreak, but at the same time affirming the virus model that supports “mitigation measures.” One such person raised millions of dollars on this premise, then ran for president with this as part of his campaign while avoiding the issue of the missing virus.
Because they are so trusted and are considered citizen advocates, my assessment is that such people do a better job than Anthony Fauci at grinding the virus concept into people’s minds.
We have a problem in that the public that questions the medical establishment seems to think of itself as skeptical, but usually will swallow anything that’s put in front of it.
Then It Comes from the Other Direction
Others seemingly taking the position that viruses do not exist have tried to make their mark, including someone who falsely claimed to have two Ph.D.s and pretended to have conducted failed virus isolation experiments that never happened.
We have a problem in that the public that questions the medical establishment seems to think of itself as skeptical, but usually will swallow anything that’s put in front of it.
Which brings me to today’s interview.
Recently, someone named Jamie Andrews, of whom I had never heard until earlier this year, appeared seemingly out of nowhere (by his own account, he got his start on Twitter). He says he was a geology major in college, and is now a real estate investor. He says that he’s an expat Brit living in southwestern France.
He arrived on the scene claiming to be a no-virus proponent, and announced himself as an ally of the effort, with plans to do actual lab experiments that would take down virology. As he worked his way through the community, Andrews has alienated many people.
And he has appeared to undermine key individuals who have been involved in documenting what I call the missing virus problem. Andrews is coming from a different angle than the usual “they cannot possibly be right” approach of virus pushers. Rather, he is implying that virus critics have not done enough — and he must do the real work, which he proposes must happen in a laboratory.
The Virus is a Theoretical Entity
Particle physicists are always looking for invisible bits, and virologists make them seem like honest, practical people. And nobody has every tried to shut down the world on suspicion of a neutrino outbreak.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Drs. Mark and Sam Bailey, Dr. Tom Cowan, Christine Massey and others have argued that virology cannot defend its existence, as its core methodologies are based in logical fallacies.
One of the primary arguments against virology is that no experimental independent variable (that is, the thing being tested) can be identified in the virologists' experiments because the claimed virus particles are never directly found and isolated from any human.
In other words, an experiment to determine whether a virus particle is harmful has to start with the existence of that particle. Though many claims have been made, such an entity has never been found in a purported host organism. Is it necessary to go further than that? Until you have the virus particle isolated, you cannot do an experiment based on it.
The contagious, self-replicating virus theory has been around for more than a century, and untold billions have been spent, but still, no luck. Or more precisely, no virus.
The Logical Fallacy of ‘Growing Viruses’
The alleged “gold standard” cell culture technique used to “make viruses” is trapped in a fatal logical fallacy. With no specific starting entity for the experiments, all you get are assertions in advance that some samples used in the experiments contain “viral” or “infected” material, and others are “healthy” specimens.
Viruses are allegedly detected in the “infected” samples (also which include a mashup animal cell lines, blood products, antibiotics and other substances) by running them through a computer program — but there is no original particle to verify the finding against, since it has not been found.
As I’ve covered this story for the past five years, and grown into an understanding of this issue, it becomes increasingly strange that there is such committed belief in the phantom entity of a virus — including by those who are aware of the mountain of evidence that one has never been found.
But since we’ve all been threatened, bullied and injected since birth, many believe that they must be real.
My own work building the chronology documents that modern virology experiments use computer simulations and rely on a technique called the PCR that is known to get 100% false positive results in clinical settings. (The PCR amplifies genetic material but can’t tell you where it came from, or determine “infection” status.)
The Most Important Experiments of the Century?
While this should be game over for the virus theory, Jamie Andrews claims that the work of many groundbreaking individuals mentioned above is insufficient — and that only his experiments will bring about the end of virology. His work was recently hyped by a supporter as the most important scientific experiment of the century.
Andrews has asserted that he is now coordinating definitive "control" experiments to disprove virology.
My mission for this interview was, show me that.
He finds it a difficult task trying to explain how it is possible to control experiments that by definition cannot be controlled when there is no independent variable to test against (that is, a sample of actual virus). His descriptions of his work rapidly slip into the same ambiguity that the virologists have employed to get us into this mess in the first place. Also, a “control” is part of an experiment used to ensure its objectivity and accuracy — not a separate thing.
In this interview, I attempted to get into the weeds of what he’s actually doing, skipping past his usual lengthy personal background presentation. In interviews with other presenters, he talks endlessly, using scientific jargon that may be convincing to those who don’t understand the technicalities.
At the same time, I have yet to hear any of the presenters who have hosted him ask an informed, provocative question. They appear to only cheer him on.
The Cell Culture Issue
Andrews’ experiments seem to have two facets at this point. One is the branch of testing cell cultures. Virologists clam that if you grow a cell culture, add some allegedly infected snot and radically cut back their food, the virus is what killed the cells.
What a German scientist named Dr. Stefan Lanka demonstrated is that if you radically cut back their food, the cells die anyway (without the allegedly infected snot) and you get the same effect — called the “cytopathic effect” or CPE.
Bear in mind, this is the entire basis of virology: add a virus, take away the food, and the cells die. But you don’t need the virus — and most viruses are not claimed to be deadly anyway. Herpes, shown above, certainly should not ever kill a cell culture. And funny enough, it does not. Removing the food kills the culture, and then virologists say, “Behold! A virus!” Trust me, I think this is just as ridiculous as you likely do.
Using a different protocol different to Lanka, in particular using human kidney cells instead of monkey cells, Andrews claims to have repeated this experiment. The net effect is, when you cut off the food supply to cells in a culture, the cells die. They don’t need a virus to kill them.
The Electron Microscopy Photo Issue
Then Andrews says that some of those samples were made into slides, and the resulting electron microscopy photos produced images of things that looked like what government agencies claimed were viruses.
However, the cultures were never infected, so there could not be a virus present. This is an interesting but also expected result that has already been conceded by the virology journals since the “cytopathic effect” experiment was first introduced in the mid-1950s.
He Claims to be Working into Genomics
Andrews told me that his next phase of work involves the fabrication of viruses and the PCR. If you listen, you will hear that he offers very little about either, and seems to have nothing to say about the PCR other than the fact that it’s being used fraudulently. When I asked him about the biggest problem with the PCR, he had little to say. To close the matter, I took the time to explain why the PCR is fraudulent when he could not do so effectively.
Here is the Problem
Though he falsely claims to have the support of many of top presenters (including the renowned Perth Group in Australia), in truth he ignores or throws shade on seasoned virology critics.
He said that his project had the support of Dr. Andrew Kaufman, but when I pressed him, he admitted that Kaufman only advised him to seek peer review.
He asserted that he had the support of Dr. Tom Cowan, but when pressed about the scientific details, he refused to say what, exactly, Cowan said or did in support, claiming the discussions were private. He has claimed personal relationships and meetings with at least one other person that have never happened.
He claimed that one well-known no-virus presenter was in support of his project, but when I queried her, it turned out that in fact he had blocked her on all of his social media channels.
He criticized the work of Christine Massey, whose work utilizes Freedom of Information (FOI) laws around the world, because it did not involve her performing laboratory experiments. (Massey’s contribution is corresponding with government entities about the existence of viruses. I am not sure what kind of lab experiment that lends itself to.)
He said the same of Mark Bailey’s efforts — there is no lab work involved. Yet Bailey is an author who also investigates and summarizes scientific papers as a video co-producer. Ironically, Andrews seems to expect Massey and Bailey to perform experiments which they have shown are flawed in principle. [See the Farewell to Virology interview here.]
Refused to Provide Laboratory Reports
Naturally, given these issues, I persisted with a line of follow-up questioning in a series of emails in the days after the interview. Along the way, he claimed to not know that I was a reporter, when I announce this fact in every email that I send with my Pacifica Radio email signature.
Andrews has asserted repeatedly, including to me, that his project is “open source” and committed to transparency. Yet when I asked him for PDF copies of the laboratory reports that support his claims, he got especially defensive. This is the most basic question any reporter must ask of any person making the claim of a scientific finding: where’s your data?
He wrote:
“I find your behaviour intrusive, rude, harassing and frankly disgusting,” he wrote to me a few days ago. “Fuck off and do not contact me again or I will take legal action.”
With that, I present the Planet Waves FM/TV interview with Jamie Andrews, leader of the Virology “Control” Studies Project.
Your faithful reporter,
Where’s Your Data? PWFM Interview with Jamie Andrews of the Virology ‘Control’ Studies Project