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. Here is what shook out.
In response to Jamie's comments about my FOI project: even if virologists found and purified particles from a cell culture or elsewhere and successfully performed controlled experiments with them (which, let's be clear: they do not do) they would still need to show that the same particles are in sick "hosts", which requires purification. So there is no getting around the failure of virologists to find and purify alleged viruses from so-called "hosts". So the FOIs (hundreds of official, legal confessions/failures aka "evidence") have confirmed what is seen in the literature - that virologists don't do this and that "experts" at hundreds of institutions have been blowing hot air.
Also, I don't know where Jamie gets the idea that I infer that all of the FOI'd institutions are doing cell cultures. That is not the case at all (many of the institutions don't even claim to have done experiments to show that a virus exists... many "only" administer fraudulent tests, quackcines, promote the hype and fear-mongering, arrest/fine people on false grounds, etc.). And I don't need to infer anything. The FOIs show that the institutions don't have valid evidence of the alleged viruses in question.
Also, I cannot understand why any dissident would put the burden of proof onto themself and other dissidents, when in fact it's on those who push narratives about viruses, masks, quackcines, fluoridated water, etc. to prove their cases - which they cannot do. All we need to do is point out their failures. Running experiments is fine if that's what you want to do, but there is absolutely zero onus on us to do so, and to criticize other projects that brilliantly educate the public and/or collect official evidence is bizarre and very dangerous.
Jamie claims that Lanka used Vero E6 monkey cells; however, Massey has provided the paper saying that it was human primary epithelial cells. But Lanka did NOT use human embryonic kidney cells.
If the cells in Lanka's demonstration were primary culture then that's a certain departure rom the current-day standard protocols which utilize highly cell lines of highly-mutilated polyploid cancer cells, often of unknown provenance and recognized to be rife with mysterious contaminating cells, especially the persistent mycoplasma.
Dunno if it makes a difference, just noting it.
Also for note, Jamie refers to his project as 'The Virology Control Studies Project' but in reality he's investigating certain protocols of cell culture as an effort to judge if such protocols are relevant as lab techniques. I'm not sure,therefore, that the title for his project is as accurate as possible.
As an attempt to conduct a controlled experiment to detect for the suspected presence of 'a virus' in a patient sample, it would be maybe be instructive to run at several inoculated cultures in parallel, side-by-side, so as to measure not merely for overall CPE but to compare THE RATE at which CPE developes.
(1) obtain a sample from the patient when the patient is healthy.
(2) obtain a sample from the same patient when the patient is sick.
(3) obtain a sample again from the same patient when the patient is recovered and healthy again.
Of course, there's always the question of whether any differential CPE effects observed in (2) are mostly due to the secretion components from the sickness rather than the actions of any theoretical pathogen, but at least this approach allows for at least some degree of internal control, avoiding the inherent variability between patients.
The simplest case would be if cultures (1), (2), & (3) all yield the same results with respect to the kinetic dynamics and pattern and extent of CPE.
If culture (2) contains new nucleic sequences not found in (1) or (3), then the most straightforward conclusion is to attribute these newly-appearing sequences to the presence of the sick patient's secretions.
A person gets sick - from trauma, infection, poisons, anxieties - and thus any one of the many acute phase stress responses produce new sets of specific nucleic acids and the corresponding proteins, all of which are usually transient.
In some settings, it is claimed, the lab technician can take a small sample from a cell culture showing CPE and then introduce this small sample into a fresh cell culture so as to generate even more CPE effects. A biochemist would interpret this as a "cascade effect" - the acute phase proteins are releasing even more CPE-inducing acute phase proteins. (The prototypical model for "cascade effects" is found in the pathways for blood clotting.)
In contrast, the virologist calls this effect: 'serial passaging of the virus particles'. This concept is conveniently adhered to since, by extrapolating from these petri dish observations, it would seem to explain how these 'viruses particles' can fly around in and out of the holes in your head until they eventually land on granny's nose, thus delivering her a ruthless death blow.
But there is no distinct, uniform particle to be found, just some goofy globs of biochemical polymer mixtures that have no real business being in a petri dish of inherently sick & deformed cancer cells, other than sometimes being admired as potentially useful molecular markers to guide the clinician's thought process or, just as likely, to lead her astray.
Jamie emailed me a while back and I told him I wasn’t persuaded by his project. He quickly spiralled into insults and logical fallacies with an impressive amount of hubris. He and his mates (like ‘DPL’) have only ever engaged aggressively with me and insulted my guests. These guys are hacks and their endeavours, as noble as they might be, won’t amount to anything because of their childish attitudes.
Jamie lies. He makes himself out to be the victim all the time. Takes no responsibility for his aggressive, woke behaviour. I know. I have a full email discussion with him in which he blatantly twists my words and makes up stuff because he can’t handle being challenged. Not once, ever, has he admitted any wrongdoing for his behaviour. That’s a red flag.
He is cagey about his apparent lab work and funding. Why? The spirit of science is open source and public.
I see. According to Jamie, tweeting that "virology is full of logical fallacies" is equally educational to Mark Bailey's epic Farewell to Virology (which isn't a book, as claimed by Jamie). And Jamie is the one who is really educating people. Ok sure.
When reading a ‘viral isolation’ paper, you will see that as well as inoculating the sputum of a symptomatic person onto a culture, they REDUCE the concentration of nutrients to the cells (fetal bovine serum)
The question Jamie’s experiment is trying to answer is primarily
Does the observed effect of cell death (CPE) occur, simply under the reduced nutrient medium? Such that, no virus is even required to cause the observed effect
Here you can see Jamie’s cultures grown at 10% FBS, showing no CPE (2nd image in thread)
Vs grown and 2% FBS where you unequivocally see CPE (first image in thread)
In the 2% FBS slide from left to right he also increases the concentration of antibiotics (pen/strep) to see if that elicits an effect on cell death.
Primarily, what you can see from Jamie’s thread is that the REDUCTION in FBS concentration IS causing CPE
So, when a ‘viral isolation’ is done and they claim the CPE is ‘due to the presence of a virus’. We now have evidence that the CPE occurs IN THE ABSENCE of anything ‘viral’
Simply due to the reduction in nutrients to the culture, when they inoculate it.
Which is the whole point, how can virologists claim a ‘virus’ is responsible for the CPE
When it occurs in the same conditions (reduced FBS) absent anything that could be considered viral
22 minutes in and he can’t even confirm the name of Stefan Lanka’s paper. Given that he bases his project’s name on this work it’s a rather important point.
he gave the approximate title but at best this indicates he was unprepared for what he should have known would be an important interview. many people he knows know exactly who I am, and it's not a secret in any event.
The 2 English translations of the titles that I have are:
Preliminary results of the control experiments: The response of primary human epithelial cells to stringent virus amplification conditions refutes the existence of all viruses including SARS-CoV-2
and
Preliminary results of the control experiments: Response of primary human epithelial cells to stringent virus amplification protocols
He claimed that the title is simply "the control experiments" or something very simple like that.
Here is the name of the initial Lanka paper: Präliminäre Resultate der Kontrollversuche
The source was Wissenschafftplus magazin 2/2021.
I think that Jamie explained well and was consistent with Lanka's work.
You misunderstood the way that Jamie used the work "control". Jamie used the word "control" in the exact way that Lanka did.
As I listen to your discussion, at some level, I am not sure how well you were hearing what Jamie was saying. I appreciate your desire to have a FOURTH case (with some matter from a sick person), but I heard Jamie say that he was sending out these samples to independent labs. Hence there would be a limitation in terms of getting the supposed "independent variable."
I know exactly what he's getting at. Also you are taking him as a sincere person with a scientific agenda; in that I feel you are mistaken. That is not Jamie's intent. And it is not the result he's getting. Anyone who cared about the scientific truth would show me his lab results and not tell me to fuck off. I am left to assume that the data does not exist.
(Forgive me, I accidentally deleted a previous note)
Of course, I am appalled by the rudeness and hostility. I am always trying to catch the flies with honey - or at least not burn those bridges (those metaphorical bridges that hopefully lead somewhere good).
I thought that the Jamie's lab results are from independent labs. That is why he said that he had to ask labs to "do an experiment" with different levels of nutrition; and or different levels of trypsin (toxicity). Hence, as discussed with Alec Zeck, the labs were - unwittingly - demonstrating that CPE could be produced in a cell culture without any hint of "virus."
If I understood you correctly, in your exchange with Jamie, you were saying that you wish that he could have ALSO had labs perform tests with some "virus"- and thus demonstrate that the there was no statistically significant difference in the level of CPE - in each of the different protocols.
I agree, such would be interesting. Nevertheless, as Lanka argues, once he (Lanka) found the CPE via the Enders method with no human material (i.e., "virus"), then the cell culture method is falsified per se. I trust that you see their perspective.
Eric, forgive me but I find this whole ordeal so strange. Is it only the fact that Jamie does not want to provide you with the data that makes you doubt his work? If that is the case even this have me puzzled because I have not heard anyone make the same request to Dr Stefan Lanka who essentially did the same work. In fact, you were so disinterested in Lanka's work that you admit yourself that you have not reviewed the papers he published.
I don't see the angle here. Please forgive me if I am missing something.
you are missing the wider context. We know all we need to know about this CPE business; everyone knows it's fake. Read my article carefully to get context about the wider movement to address germ theory
Martin, there's a lot; I cannot take any more time to explain other than what I've written above, and Jamie's performance in the interview. He is not on the up and up. He does not know his material. He does not understand what he's doing, and then he spews hate and discord in a very small community, claiming to do the work that others are really doing. Not providing his data, however, is the de facto deal breaker. He claims to be doing "open source" science. Even the NYS Dept of Health provides its data. Please read the article and study what I've linked to. Mark Bailey has settled the issues with Farewell to Virology. No lab tests are needed; there are no goblins in bottles.
Hi Eric, forgive my ignorance. I don't know as much as you and your team and most probably are missing a lot. I have read your article twice now to try and make sense of it all. I have also reviewed some of the work of Poornima Wagh and found this video by Regis (https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ptfan6lKTcEf/). I must say she comes across very rattled in the interview which is not a good sign.
There is so much to uncover it seems there is a mountain ahead of me.
You have writing two posts documenting what Poornima and Jamie did. Did you perhaps write an article about the shady dealings of Dr Stefan Lanka? I know he did experiments that are very similar to what Jamie is doing so I can only imagine what your team has uncovered about him.
I will make a point of it to start reviewing Mark Baileys work. I would like to avoid dealing with inaccurate information as far as possible.
"Jamies" Experiments - the question is: Is FBS reduction the cause of CPE?
- the cause or independent variable is the concentration of FBS
- the effect or dependent variable is CPE
the answer is: CPE is caused by reduction of FBS, and this reduction ("surprisingly") is part of the standard laboratory procedure in virology.
So, at the same time, “Jamie's” experiment is a control that refutes one of the IDEAs about the existence (detection) of alleged "viruses" by isolation in cell cultures.
Claiming that the onus is on dissenters to provide experimental results is brilliant? Next he'll be insisting that quackcine skeptics have to run their own trials and prove harm. Who benefits from such mental gymnastics? Why would he do this?
Why does he continually put down other no-virus work based on it "lacking" experimental evidence when people are successfully showing how unscientific virology is? Why make false and misleading statements about my FOI project?
Why tell other no-virus people to "fuck off" at the drop of a hat? He did this to me in emails yet never managed to show that I'd done any of the things he accused me of. He threatens legal action over someone asking questions!
How can he not know what trypsin is at this stage of the game, especially when he's running experiments?? How does describing sputum from a healthy person as a "positive control" make any sense whatsoever? He's making it easy for no-virus critics to dismiss us.
So, Jamie is the worst case of grifter, asking for money and producing nothing new, a controlled opposition, or con man , causing division within the community.
What a scumbag.
He's on the list of counter agents.
The list is growing to be quite large!
Deceiving the freedom fighters intentionally, has a price.......
Eric, is new age, Jamie, CO, and a few "others" exposing themselves as new age Kabalists.
I'm not sure about you though, many "alien" references and Jargon , (all military psyops) and a few conflicting messages......
Subversion using the truth, is a common tactic, in which I see many on this channel using techniques known to me over the decades.....
Christine's work is solid, so is the Bailey's, which NONE of you come close to.
It deserves respect, and not hijacking for ambition.
As for "5G" , it is only one vector in this war, and "not the only one".
As an engineer, studying this war way before the "Kissinger report" was published, I would know.
I'm cautious of "long standing" activists.......effective ones are usually not allowed to be "popular".
I suggest you revisit Dr Lanka' s work, if you want the big picture.
I've heard many of you are playing the "cancel culture" games....with others, yourself not excluded.
It was self evident, that Jamie, was indeed, using others work, and claiming it his own, then adding an element, which was conflicting, when obviously not scientifically qualified to do so.
As for Eric, another "long standing" activist......
Good luck with you're frequency research, it's important, but not the be all and end all.
Two of your " gang" are anonymous! even though I like Proton,
who really knows who they are, the other two , not heard of until visiting Substack.
When using someone else's work......do not bag the authors and researchers.
Now if sincere, thank you for spreading the info, you're a credit to freedom, and to the ones who've done more than just "post".
I ( one of the first, alongside with others like Joe Imbriano - brilliant guy) posted the colleration between 5G and the impossible virus spread, at the start of the pandemic.
The Fullerton Report has been on this for decades.....
Very, very few back then , acknowledged it, .....even Brighteon, rumble, ugetube and Infowars shadowed banned it!, back then, now capitalizing on it....
The question is whether it's consistent with controls used in microbio experiments. This is not british high school. My model was from a series of independent lab tests for SV-40 described in the book The Virus and the Vaccine, as well as what I know from environmental chemistry.
However, the issue here seems to be that you cannot do a control on an experiment that already happened. The point of a control is to test the environmental conditions at the time of the study to see if the same result can be attained without introduction of the independent variable.
Additionally, he demonstrates extreme bias in his angle of approach rather than having even the pretext of objectivity. He is not saying "we are going to see what happens" but rather "we are setting out to show this." Finally, none of these experiments are admissible in court as a defense against masking, injection or getting fired. That is pure hype.
Thank you, Eric! I especially appreciated your being able to let him speak long enough to make no sense. I could not stop chuckling and loved how you pulled out the eclipse chart at the end and gave him a reading for his son. This person is obviously confused and isn't really doing the field any favors.
People are open to different arguments. There is not THE strategy.
Any approach that sows doubt about the virus existence lie is fine with me because no matter what you cite, be it Lanka's measles trial, Christine Massey's FOI requests or Jamie Andrews' control experiments and as a trump card the Baileys' books, Coppolino's interviews, people's denial of reality is bottomless.
So to break open the crusts of indoctrination, all 'weapons' are fine with me. I buy books, am a paying supporter and participate in crowd funding for control experiments. When parties on the 'side of the narrative', the so-called 'no virus theory', denigrate each other, do not grant each other success and support or simply do not accept different approaches, this only harms the common goal. It also gives the impression that it's not just about the truth, but about vanity and money.
I believe in daily form, poor preparation and nervousness in individuals.
I have seen almost everyone involved fail to ask essential questions or cite sources.
My only quality mark is that everyone tries to act as a multiplier and expose virology as pseudoscience. Then, in my view, the mission is accomplished.
I was surprised to find that Jamie earns his money from Real estate investment. The property market, mortgages etc are the belly of the beast. I wonder how many other people in the 'freedom movement' benefit from the Babylonian banking system and mortgage fraud?!
In response to Jamie's comments about my FOI project: even if virologists found and purified particles from a cell culture or elsewhere and successfully performed controlled experiments with them (which, let's be clear: they do not do) they would still need to show that the same particles are in sick "hosts", which requires purification. So there is no getting around the failure of virologists to find and purify alleged viruses from so-called "hosts". So the FOIs (hundreds of official, legal confessions/failures aka "evidence") have confirmed what is seen in the literature - that virologists don't do this and that "experts" at hundreds of institutions have been blowing hot air.
Also, I don't know where Jamie gets the idea that I infer that all of the FOI'd institutions are doing cell cultures. That is not the case at all (many of the institutions don't even claim to have done experiments to show that a virus exists... many "only" administer fraudulent tests, quackcines, promote the hype and fear-mongering, arrest/fine people on false grounds, etc.). And I don't need to infer anything. The FOIs show that the institutions don't have valid evidence of the alleged viruses in question.
Also, I cannot understand why any dissident would put the burden of proof onto themself and other dissidents, when in fact it's on those who push narratives about viruses, masks, quackcines, fluoridated water, etc. to prove their cases - which they cannot do. All we need to do is point out their failures. Running experiments is fine if that's what you want to do, but there is absolutely zero onus on us to do so, and to criticize other projects that brilliantly educate the public and/or collect official evidence is bizarre and very dangerous.
Crystal clear.
Jamie claims that Lanka used Vero E6 monkey cells; however, Massey has provided the paper saying that it was human primary epithelial cells. But Lanka did NOT use human embryonic kidney cells.
"healthy primary human epithelial cells"
If the cells in Lanka's demonstration were primary culture then that's a certain departure rom the current-day standard protocols which utilize highly cell lines of highly-mutilated polyploid cancer cells, often of unknown provenance and recognized to be rife with mysterious contaminating cells, especially the persistent mycoplasma.
Dunno if it makes a difference, just noting it.
Also for note, Jamie refers to his project as 'The Virology Control Studies Project' but in reality he's investigating certain protocols of cell culture as an effort to judge if such protocols are relevant as lab techniques. I'm not sure,therefore, that the title for his project is as accurate as possible.
As an attempt to conduct a controlled experiment to detect for the suspected presence of 'a virus' in a patient sample, it would be maybe be instructive to run at several inoculated cultures in parallel, side-by-side, so as to measure not merely for overall CPE but to compare THE RATE at which CPE developes.
(1) obtain a sample from the patient when the patient is healthy.
(2) obtain a sample from the same patient when the patient is sick.
(3) obtain a sample again from the same patient when the patient is recovered and healthy again.
Of course, there's always the question of whether any differential CPE effects observed in (2) are mostly due to the secretion components from the sickness rather than the actions of any theoretical pathogen, but at least this approach allows for at least some degree of internal control, avoiding the inherent variability between patients.
The simplest case would be if cultures (1), (2), & (3) all yield the same results with respect to the kinetic dynamics and pattern and extent of CPE.
If culture (2) contains new nucleic sequences not found in (1) or (3), then the most straightforward conclusion is to attribute these newly-appearing sequences to the presence of the sick patient's secretions.
A person gets sick - from trauma, infection, poisons, anxieties - and thus any one of the many acute phase stress responses produce new sets of specific nucleic acids and the corresponding proteins, all of which are usually transient.
In some settings, it is claimed, the lab technician can take a small sample from a cell culture showing CPE and then introduce this small sample into a fresh cell culture so as to generate even more CPE effects. A biochemist would interpret this as a "cascade effect" - the acute phase proteins are releasing even more CPE-inducing acute phase proteins. (The prototypical model for "cascade effects" is found in the pathways for blood clotting.)
In contrast, the virologist calls this effect: 'serial passaging of the virus particles'. This concept is conveniently adhered to since, by extrapolating from these petri dish observations, it would seem to explain how these 'viruses particles' can fly around in and out of the holes in your head until they eventually land on granny's nose, thus delivering her a ruthless death blow.
But there is no distinct, uniform particle to be found, just some goofy globs of biochemical polymer mixtures that have no real business being in a petri dish of inherently sick & deformed cancer cells, other than sometimes being admired as potentially useful molecular markers to guide the clinician's thought process or, just as likely, to lead her astray.
Jamie was knowledgeable and well spoken, thank you for bringing attention to the project!
Jamie emailed me a while back and I told him I wasn’t persuaded by his project. He quickly spiralled into insults and logical fallacies with an impressive amount of hubris. He and his mates (like ‘DPL’) have only ever engaged aggressively with me and insulted my guests. These guys are hacks and their endeavours, as noble as they might be, won’t amount to anything because of their childish attitudes.
What are you talking about? 😂 I neither emailed you nor invited you onto my podcast.
Jamie lies. He makes himself out to be the victim all the time. Takes no responsibility for his aggressive, woke behaviour. I know. I have a full email discussion with him in which he blatantly twists my words and makes up stuff because he can’t handle being challenged. Not once, ever, has he admitted any wrongdoing for his behaviour. That’s a red flag.
He is cagey about his apparent lab work and funding. Why? The spirit of science is open source and public.
Not a good look.
I see. According to Jamie, tweeting that "virology is full of logical fallacies" is equally educational to Mark Bailey's epic Farewell to Virology (which isn't a book, as claimed by Jamie). And Jamie is the one who is really educating people. Ok sure.
Yes, with sloppy and lazy language! But who cares it’s junk right????
First things first
When reading a ‘viral isolation’ paper, you will see that as well as inoculating the sputum of a symptomatic person onto a culture, they REDUCE the concentration of nutrients to the cells (fetal bovine serum)
See here, ‘note 5’
https://www.atcc.org/resources/culture-guides/virology-culture-guide#GrowthMedia
The question Jamie’s experiment is trying to answer is primarily
Does the observed effect of cell death (CPE) occur, simply under the reduced nutrient medium? Such that, no virus is even required to cause the observed effect
Here you can see Jamie’s cultures grown at 10% FBS, showing no CPE (2nd image in thread)
https://x.com/jamieaa_again/status/1817935514697113753?s=46
Vs grown and 2% FBS where you unequivocally see CPE (first image in thread)
In the 2% FBS slide from left to right he also increases the concentration of antibiotics (pen/strep) to see if that elicits an effect on cell death.
Primarily, what you can see from Jamie’s thread is that the REDUCTION in FBS concentration IS causing CPE
So, when a ‘viral isolation’ is done and they claim the CPE is ‘due to the presence of a virus’. We now have evidence that the CPE occurs IN THE ABSENCE of anything ‘viral’
Simply due to the reduction in nutrients to the culture, when they inoculate it.
Which is the whole point, how can virologists claim a ‘virus’ is responsible for the CPE
When it occurs in the same conditions (reduced FBS) absent anything that could be considered viral
Hope that helps
22 minutes in and he can’t even confirm the name of Stefan Lanka’s paper. Given that he bases his project’s name on this work it’s a rather important point.
Didn't he give the original German Title?
he gave the approximate title but at best this indicates he was unprepared for what he should have known would be an important interview. many people he knows know exactly who I am, and it's not a secret in any event.
The 2 English translations of the titles that I have are:
Preliminary results of the control experiments: The response of primary human epithelial cells to stringent virus amplification conditions refutes the existence of all viruses including SARS-CoV-2
and
Preliminary results of the control experiments: Response of primary human epithelial cells to stringent virus amplification protocols
He claimed that the title is simply "the control experiments" or something very simple like that.
Dear EFC,
Here is the name of the initial Lanka paper: Präliminäre Resultate der Kontrollversuche
The source was Wissenschafftplus magazin 2/2021.
I think that Jamie explained well and was consistent with Lanka's work.
You misunderstood the way that Jamie used the work "control". Jamie used the word "control" in the exact way that Lanka did.
As I listen to your discussion, at some level, I am not sure how well you were hearing what Jamie was saying. I appreciate your desire to have a FOURTH case (with some matter from a sick person), but I heard Jamie say that he was sending out these samples to independent labs. Hence there would be a limitation in terms of getting the supposed "independent variable."
You were talking past Jamie - a lot.
Best
I know exactly what he's getting at. Also you are taking him as a sincere person with a scientific agenda; in that I feel you are mistaken. That is not Jamie's intent. And it is not the result he's getting. Anyone who cared about the scientific truth would show me his lab results and not tell me to fuck off. I am left to assume that the data does not exist.
Dear EFC,
(Forgive me, I accidentally deleted a previous note)
Of course, I am appalled by the rudeness and hostility. I am always trying to catch the flies with honey - or at least not burn those bridges (those metaphorical bridges that hopefully lead somewhere good).
I thought that the Jamie's lab results are from independent labs. That is why he said that he had to ask labs to "do an experiment" with different levels of nutrition; and or different levels of trypsin (toxicity). Hence, as discussed with Alec Zeck, the labs were - unwittingly - demonstrating that CPE could be produced in a cell culture without any hint of "virus."
If I understood you correctly, in your exchange with Jamie, you were saying that you wish that he could have ALSO had labs perform tests with some "virus"- and thus demonstrate that the there was no statistically significant difference in the level of CPE - in each of the different protocols.
I agree, such would be interesting. Nevertheless, as Lanka argues, once he (Lanka) found the CPE via the Enders method with no human material (i.e., "virus"), then the cell culture method is falsified per se. I trust that you see their perspective.
As always, I appreciate your good works. Best
John, his hostility is a scrim for refusing to provide his data. As far as I am concerned, the "experiment" never happened.
Eric, forgive me but I find this whole ordeal so strange. Is it only the fact that Jamie does not want to provide you with the data that makes you doubt his work? If that is the case even this have me puzzled because I have not heard anyone make the same request to Dr Stefan Lanka who essentially did the same work. In fact, you were so disinterested in Lanka's work that you admit yourself that you have not reviewed the papers he published.
I don't see the angle here. Please forgive me if I am missing something.
you are missing the wider context. We know all we need to know about this CPE business; everyone knows it's fake. Read my article carefully to get context about the wider movement to address germ theory
Martin, there's a lot; I cannot take any more time to explain other than what I've written above, and Jamie's performance in the interview. He is not on the up and up. He does not know his material. He does not understand what he's doing, and then he spews hate and discord in a very small community, claiming to do the work that others are really doing. Not providing his data, however, is the de facto deal breaker. He claims to be doing "open source" science. Even the NYS Dept of Health provides its data. Please read the article and study what I've linked to. Mark Bailey has settled the issues with Farewell to Virology. No lab tests are needed; there are no goblins in bottles.
Hi Eric, forgive my ignorance. I don't know as much as you and your team and most probably are missing a lot. I have read your article twice now to try and make sense of it all. I have also reviewed some of the work of Poornima Wagh and found this video by Regis (https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ptfan6lKTcEf/). I must say she comes across very rattled in the interview which is not a good sign.
There is so much to uncover it seems there is a mountain ahead of me.
You have writing two posts documenting what Poornima and Jamie did. Did you perhaps write an article about the shady dealings of Dr Stefan Lanka? I know he did experiments that are very similar to what Jamie is doing so I can only imagine what your team has uncovered about him.
I will make a point of it to start reviewing Mark Baileys work. I would like to avoid dealing with inaccurate information as far as possible.
"Jamies" Experiments - the question is: Is FBS reduction the cause of CPE?
- the cause or independent variable is the concentration of FBS
- the effect or dependent variable is CPE
the answer is: CPE is caused by reduction of FBS, and this reduction ("surprisingly") is part of the standard laboratory procedure in virology.
So, at the same time, “Jamie's” experiment is a control that refutes one of the IDEAs about the existence (detection) of alleged "viruses" by isolation in cell cultures.
That's all folks in this episode :)
You are a bloodhound for bullshit.
Claiming that the onus is on dissenters to provide experimental results is brilliant? Next he'll be insisting that quackcine skeptics have to run their own trials and prove harm. Who benefits from such mental gymnastics? Why would he do this?
Why does he continually put down other no-virus work based on it "lacking" experimental evidence when people are successfully showing how unscientific virology is? Why make false and misleading statements about my FOI project?
Why tell other no-virus people to "fuck off" at the drop of a hat? He did this to me in emails yet never managed to show that I'd done any of the things he accused me of. He threatens legal action over someone asking questions!
How can he not know what trypsin is at this stage of the game, especially when he's running experiments?? How does describing sputum from a healthy person as a "positive control" make any sense whatsoever? He's making it easy for no-virus critics to dismiss us.
So, Jamie is the worst case of grifter, asking for money and producing nothing new, a controlled opposition, or con man , causing division within the community.
What a scumbag.
He's on the list of counter agents.
The list is growing to be quite large!
Deceiving the freedom fighters intentionally, has a price.......
Great work Eric and Andy!
God bless and Protect.
Bingo 🎯 “Never let a crisis go your way waste.”
You want honesty, Frances?
Eric, is new age, Jamie, CO, and a few "others" exposing themselves as new age Kabalists.
I'm not sure about you though, many "alien" references and Jargon , (all military psyops) and a few conflicting messages......
Subversion using the truth, is a common tactic, in which I see many on this channel using techniques known to me over the decades.....
Christine's work is solid, so is the Bailey's, which NONE of you come close to.
It deserves respect, and not hijacking for ambition.
As for "5G" , it is only one vector in this war, and "not the only one".
As an engineer, studying this war way before the "Kissinger report" was published, I would know.
I'm cautious of "long standing" activists.......effective ones are usually not allowed to be "popular".
I suggest you revisit Dr Lanka' s work, if you want the big picture.
I've heard many of you are playing the "cancel culture" games....with others, yourself not excluded.
It was self evident, that Jamie, was indeed, using others work, and claiming it his own, then adding an element, which was conflicting, when obviously not scientifically qualified to do so.
As for Eric, another "long standing" activist......
Good luck with you're frequency research, it's important, but not the be all and end all.
Regards,
Michael.
What exactly is so "new age" about me? I am Quaker, and I practice an art form that dates to the 4th Century BCE. What's so new about those things?
Two of your " gang" are anonymous! even though I like Proton,
who really knows who they are, the other two , not heard of until visiting Substack.
When using someone else's work......do not bag the authors and researchers.
Now if sincere, thank you for spreading the info, you're a credit to freedom, and to the ones who've done more than just "post".
I ( one of the first, alongside with others like Joe Imbriano - brilliant guy) posted the colleration between 5G and the impossible virus spread, at the start of the pandemic.
The Fullerton Report has been on this for decades.....
Very, very few back then , acknowledged it, .....even Brighteon, rumble, ugetube and Infowars shadowed banned it!, back then, now capitalizing on it....
54 years is a long time.....
Kind regards,
And good luck.
Michael.
Is there a virus?
Mental health issues with you.
Adios.
The question is whether it's consistent with controls used in microbio experiments. This is not british high school. My model was from a series of independent lab tests for SV-40 described in the book The Virus and the Vaccine, as well as what I know from environmental chemistry.
However, the issue here seems to be that you cannot do a control on an experiment that already happened. The point of a control is to test the environmental conditions at the time of the study to see if the same result can be attained without introduction of the independent variable.
Additionally, he demonstrates extreme bias in his angle of approach rather than having even the pretext of objectivity. He is not saying "we are going to see what happens" but rather "we are setting out to show this." Finally, none of these experiments are admissible in court as a defense against masking, injection or getting fired. That is pure hype.
Thank you, Eric! I especially appreciated your being able to let him speak long enough to make no sense. I could not stop chuckling and loved how you pulled out the eclipse chart at the end and gave him a reading for his son. This person is obviously confused and isn't really doing the field any favors.
hello lulu <3
Case well stated and well made. Nothing i need to add, nothing i need to say. Except that this is ..just exactly perfect.
People are open to different arguments. There is not THE strategy.
Any approach that sows doubt about the virus existence lie is fine with me because no matter what you cite, be it Lanka's measles trial, Christine Massey's FOI requests or Jamie Andrews' control experiments and as a trump card the Baileys' books, Coppolino's interviews, people's denial of reality is bottomless.
So to break open the crusts of indoctrination, all 'weapons' are fine with me. I buy books, am a paying supporter and participate in crowd funding for control experiments. When parties on the 'side of the narrative', the so-called 'no virus theory', denigrate each other, do not grant each other success and support or simply do not accept different approaches, this only harms the common goal. It also gives the impression that it's not just about the truth, but about vanity and money.
I believe in daily form, poor preparation and nervousness in individuals.
I have seen almost everyone involved fail to ask essential questions or cite sources.
My only quality mark is that everyone tries to act as a multiplier and expose virology as pseudoscience. Then, in my view, the mission is accomplished.
I was surprised to find that Jamie earns his money from Real estate investment. The property market, mortgages etc are the belly of the beast. I wonder how many other people in the 'freedom movement' benefit from the Babylonian banking system and mortgage fraud?!