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.
Why is everyone stoning this guy? The claim of virology is that CPE is the proof of virus. He did the Lanka thingy, producing CPE without virus, thus virology claim is falsified, the end. He is further strengthening the no virus camp. Oh, he didn't do one with a sick person's smegma, so what, virology already did that a billion times. "What if it killed 60% of the cells" (wtf?), it would have happened on virology experiments already. The point is CPE or not CPE, not "how much" CPE. Then he says the word "junk" and on we go for a week of discussions about terminologies and journalism ethics? What the fuck? I didn't know Jamie, never heard of him, and he seemed to be - on this interview - in total agreement with the no virus gang, so I didn't understand why Eric was trying to "get him" on the usual biased traps one uses when one wants to discredit the interviewee. Why? He's corroborating the no virus, isn't he? And scientifically so. So why suddenly he is a son of a bitch? I don't get it. Can someone explain? Maybe my brain is shrinking in this digital era.
Please help me see the bias, other than being factual. Bias is an unfair slant. I'm asking a claimed scientific project manager what he is doing from a technical standpoint.
I meant traps, picking on certain details and going on about it, something that gives the listener the impression that you are trying to lead the guy into a trap, something like that. I was surprised also about him not having a sample from a sick person, but after two seconds I thought it's irrelevant, since virology already does that all the time. It's not something that invalidates his experiment. You seemed to be picking on things, and I was saying, "But what do you want, Eric?". Maybe there's something about this guy that I don't know. And the flat earth at the end was just.....you know....wtf. As much as I love you and listen to you all the time, this one baffled me, that's why I'm guessing there's something I'm missing here.
I did not ask him one question that should not have been plainly obvious and that did not have an easy answer. I watched several other interviews where he was allowed to talk endlessly and nobody asked him a single question; nobody challenged him to go into any detail.
He is being accepted as an expert when what he is really doing is tossing around jargon. His knowledge level on issues where he claims to be an expert is dismal. If he is claiming to repeat Lanka's simple experiment he should know everything about it, including the name of the paper and the cell line used.
People like this -- and their are many, and I have covered many of them -- present the single biggest problem to the challenge to germ theory by skewing the issues and pretending to go after "pseudoscience" while doing it themselves. The public needs to be far less credulous. They buy this kind of bullshit like it's the Hula Hoop.
If you skip to the last lines of the article, I only give one example of that kind of insult and rage -- what he said to me. His conduct has been disruptive and attention seeking while making it seem, to many, like he's the only one doing the real work.
More significantly, any presenter who claims to be a representative of true science, especially one who does an "open source" project, and who does not present all of his data when asked, must be held as a charlatan. We have no proof that any of this really occurred. I'm not saying that it didn't. I'm saying that he must turn over his final reports -- not his bids from the labs.
That's really funny. He seemed to know a hell of a lot more than you did both in general subject matter and the technicalities, and he was much more articulate than you, every step of the way.
Every single one of his rebuttals to your lame and ridiculous "challenges" was easy to understand and yet you continued to try to waffle and thwart by focusing on meaningless minutiae rather than move the discussion forward. Of course, this was most obvious when he told you that he has never seen a single paper in which they detail the methodology for their "mock controls," to which you responded:
"Okay, well umm err uhhh [stammer, stammer] I don't know enough to evaluate that."
Right, exactly. That's the entire interview in a nutshell.
You, not knowing enough to have an intelligent, productive conversation with Jamie about the experiments, their results and what we can take from those results as well as what we can do in terms of next steps. You sounded more like a wannabe shock-jock than a genuine journalist.
I also find it a bit amusing that you didn't even bother to read Lanka's papers yet want to hold it against him because he may have forgotten a few minor details. You came across poorly in this interview. It comes across as less about you wanting to discuss the experiments in good faith and more about you having some sort of strange axe to grind or agenda to push. Very bizarre for someone supposedly on the so-called "Team No-Virus" - you sounded more like a virologist than anything else.
Finally, I'll say that I didn't even finish the interview (I got about 3/4ths of thew way in). Not because I didn't find it interesting - I sincerely did want to hear more about the implications of the experiments from Jamie, but I couldn't get through your incessant waffling, disingenuous approach, constant talking in circles and endless logical fallacies.
Oh well, now I can change my opinion. Thanks for explaining. I was indeed thinking if he was not a charlatan, and I was falling for it. But even so, why would a charlatan corroborate Lanka so much? Some more naïveté on my part for you there. I'm from the age when one lie was enough, not this Russian doll of Russian dolls of lie upon lie we have today. Ok, then. Thank you again, sir. Now I understand.
He's a different kind of charlatan. More like Poornima than RFK Jr. He is picking up on the anti-virus meme and doing it badly. He seems to affirm Lanka but does not know the basics of his experiment.
And he did not need to do the cell culture 90 times. With the same resources, he could design something interesting, if he had any ideas. He could do the experiment twice, write to me and ask for coverage, and I would do a fantastic public article affirming the the CPE is bullshit. Instead, he uses his work to go to war with his neighbors.
I think the idea is to just get attention and funding and to diminish the excellent work of people like Massey and Mark Bailey. To critique them by saying "they need to be in the lab" is absurd...they are legal and scientific investigators...taking up different angles of what must be seen from different points of view and where they comport.
Massey has hundreds of agencies and institutions admitting there is no virus...as in, not a single one. This should be headlines everywhere. But behold, Andrews says it's worthless as does RFK Jr.
Eric, I must admit this interview was difficult to listen to. Yes Jamie is not a good speaker on his own topic. Jamie was defensive - possibly because he felt attacked. I was very surprised by your mention of “pathogen” when you have been on the “no virus” side for the past several years. There is no virus. There is no pathogen. And Jamie’s experiments are merely funded and directed by him as he is not a scientist. Jamie is using the virologist techniques and methodology against them to prove that virology is a pseudoscience. Lanka’ experiments were the same. Showing that the same “particles” that are claimed to be “virus” are just the breakdown of dead and dying cells. Also proving that truth cannot be obtained by killing a living being in order to study it.
Yes Jamie is not a good advocate for his own data, and his personality is trying, but his data supports the no virus/no pathogen hypothesis and debunks the germ theory.
And yes, I must confess, here before the whole world, I did not read the article, but went straight to the interview, that's why I didn't get it. I will now to my room to give myself twenty slashes! Eric, please forgive me.
Slashes? Did I mean lashes? Slash is like a cut, right? Oh, maldito inglês....sorry. PS - apparently I wasn't the only one that didn't read the article before watching the video. Hmmm.
I wanted to write something similar because I am new to this topic. I've done some research on vaccines but I did not know the rabbit hole was this deep so virology having no grounds is new to me.
Your description of nitpicking specific words and phrases is spot on. This seems like a typical mainstream method of discrediting someone with a complete loss of focus on what really matters...
To be honest, Eric and everyone he supports in this article could have done a lot better if it was never posted.
I was very confused seeing some of the same type of articles a while back but after reading this article and watching the interview I must admit it's clear what's really going on.
Virology was already falsified, the end. He's not further strengthening no-virus when he continually makes snide, disparaging and inaccurate remarks about the work of the no-virus people who came before him and pretends that there's an onus on us to run experiments. Quite the opposite. And by communicating in such a sloppy manner he makes it easier for critics to dismiss all of us. And no, it's not as simple as CPE yes/no if you carefully read the studies. In some they make it sound like a binary, in others they approach it as a matter of degree. And Jamie cannot make comparisons between his Countessa (sp?) results and studies that didn't use Countessa, obviously. And did you miss the part where he threatend legal action and told Eric to fuck off for.... asking questions? This is typical behaviour for Jamie. I've also been on the receiving end of his wild accusations and "fuck offs".
Also I am not understanding something in your viewpoint, West. Are you saying that these questions do not need to be asked and that the public does not have a right to know the answers? Even most "health show" hosts can't get into the tech details like I can; nobody has till now.
I wish you the best Eric. Maybe we go our separate ways. There is no way I will ever understand how you are not aware how completely ludicrous this ‘interview’ was.
If it's that obvious I should understand. I have prepared since June, and this is consistent with the rest of my body of work. But you're still not answering my question: do these questions deserve to be asked, and answered? Just because you don't want to know doesn't mean other people do not deserve to know.
There is no question you asked that isn’t being asked by many. The main point is you almost wilfully in a Kirschian way misunderstood everything Jamie said.
These control studies - and they most certainly are control studies, completely destroy virology ‘isolation’.
Yes it was bollocks anyway, but because of Lanka and now Andrews, all tissue culture experiments are rendered pointless.
You seemed to go to wild lengths to not understand this simple point and so many others.
If I didn’t trust your direction which I do I would simply dismiss this as deliberate obfuscation on your part.
I don’t understand but I would like to just walk away. It’s all too bewildering
also you are making an assumption that I am **pretending** not to understand, which means being disingenuous. Has it occurred to you that you are not understanding the basis of my questions? And on what grounds are you assuming that I am only making believe? What is your actual reference point?
No. I said plainly that i am sure you are not pretending to understand. I make a careful point of saying clearly several times.
It is somewhat ironic, that you didn’t understand that I was saying clearly that you are not pretending to understand despite my careful pains to make this clear!
I will hypothesise that sometimes you get an idea in your head and are unable to listen to or consider the words of the other person.
Jamie gets my vote as most patient man alive after perhaps Ian Davies.
I don’t think I would lasted half an hour without getting very irritated
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.
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.
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.
Jeremy "I like Viruses engineered from Bat Anuses" Nell here is such a scientifically illiterate coward he had to run away from interviewing me, knowing he would be swept aside with ease, just like the loon astrology wierdos that he keeps company with.
I always provide my data, including charts and how I source the time. I also have a clear editorial policy on my use of astrology. I have never once claimed that astrological interpretation is a scientific matter — only the casting of the chart. You can find my astrology guidelines here:
Astrology is not the truth. As presented in the 21st century, it is a form of personally applicable fiction, or a symbolic and metaphoric framework through which to view ourselves and the world. The use of astrology is therefore by definition the expression of opinion or interpretation.
Astrology derives from an ancient point of view that is not established by modern science, and the use of astrology by our writers, editors, readers and clients is offered as an analytical framework rather than as an exposition of objective reality. We do not attempt to predict the future using astrology.
Nothing in anything published by Planet Waves, Inc., is meant to constitute medical, legal or financial advice. We enthusiastically encourage people to seek the help of those qualified to assist with specific medical, legal and financial questions.
Planet Waves, Inc. asserts a First Amendment religious right (under both the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise” clause) for all discussions about or including astrology, and for all of our published works in any medium.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.......
"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.
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.
Why is everyone stoning this guy? The claim of virology is that CPE is the proof of virus. He did the Lanka thingy, producing CPE without virus, thus virology claim is falsified, the end. He is further strengthening the no virus camp. Oh, he didn't do one with a sick person's smegma, so what, virology already did that a billion times. "What if it killed 60% of the cells" (wtf?), it would have happened on virology experiments already. The point is CPE or not CPE, not "how much" CPE. Then he says the word "junk" and on we go for a week of discussions about terminologies and journalism ethics? What the fuck? I didn't know Jamie, never heard of him, and he seemed to be - on this interview - in total agreement with the no virus gang, so I didn't understand why Eric was trying to "get him" on the usual biased traps one uses when one wants to discredit the interviewee. Why? He's corroborating the no virus, isn't he? And scientifically so. So why suddenly he is a son of a bitch? I don't get it. Can someone explain? Maybe my brain is shrinking in this digital era.
Please help me see the bias, other than being factual. Bias is an unfair slant. I'm asking a claimed scientific project manager what he is doing from a technical standpoint.
I meant traps, picking on certain details and going on about it, something that gives the listener the impression that you are trying to lead the guy into a trap, something like that. I was surprised also about him not having a sample from a sick person, but after two seconds I thought it's irrelevant, since virology already does that all the time. It's not something that invalidates his experiment. You seemed to be picking on things, and I was saying, "But what do you want, Eric?". Maybe there's something about this guy that I don't know. And the flat earth at the end was just.....you know....wtf. As much as I love you and listen to you all the time, this one baffled me, that's why I'm guessing there's something I'm missing here.
I did not ask him one question that should not have been plainly obvious and that did not have an easy answer. I watched several other interviews where he was allowed to talk endlessly and nobody asked him a single question; nobody challenged him to go into any detail.
He is being accepted as an expert when what he is really doing is tossing around jargon. His knowledge level on issues where he claims to be an expert is dismal. If he is claiming to repeat Lanka's simple experiment he should know everything about it, including the name of the paper and the cell line used.
People like this -- and their are many, and I have covered many of them -- present the single biggest problem to the challenge to germ theory by skewing the issues and pretending to go after "pseudoscience" while doing it themselves. The public needs to be far less credulous. They buy this kind of bullshit like it's the Hula Hoop.
If you skip to the last lines of the article, I only give one example of that kind of insult and rage -- what he said to me. His conduct has been disruptive and attention seeking while making it seem, to many, like he's the only one doing the real work.
More significantly, any presenter who claims to be a representative of true science, especially one who does an "open source" project, and who does not present all of his data when asked, must be held as a charlatan. We have no proof that any of this really occurred. I'm not saying that it didn't. I'm saying that he must turn over his final reports -- not his bids from the labs.
That's really funny. He seemed to know a hell of a lot more than you did both in general subject matter and the technicalities, and he was much more articulate than you, every step of the way.
Every single one of his rebuttals to your lame and ridiculous "challenges" was easy to understand and yet you continued to try to waffle and thwart by focusing on meaningless minutiae rather than move the discussion forward. Of course, this was most obvious when he told you that he has never seen a single paper in which they detail the methodology for their "mock controls," to which you responded:
"Okay, well umm err uhhh [stammer, stammer] I don't know enough to evaluate that."
Right, exactly. That's the entire interview in a nutshell.
You, not knowing enough to have an intelligent, productive conversation with Jamie about the experiments, their results and what we can take from those results as well as what we can do in terms of next steps. You sounded more like a wannabe shock-jock than a genuine journalist.
I also find it a bit amusing that you didn't even bother to read Lanka's papers yet want to hold it against him because he may have forgotten a few minor details. You came across poorly in this interview. It comes across as less about you wanting to discuss the experiments in good faith and more about you having some sort of strange axe to grind or agenda to push. Very bizarre for someone supposedly on the so-called "Team No-Virus" - you sounded more like a virologist than anything else.
Finally, I'll say that I didn't even finish the interview (I got about 3/4ths of thew way in). Not because I didn't find it interesting - I sincerely did want to hear more about the implications of the experiments from Jamie, but I couldn't get through your incessant waffling, disingenuous approach, constant talking in circles and endless logical fallacies.
Oh well, now I can change my opinion. Thanks for explaining. I was indeed thinking if he was not a charlatan, and I was falling for it. But even so, why would a charlatan corroborate Lanka so much? Some more naïveté on my part for you there. I'm from the age when one lie was enough, not this Russian doll of Russian dolls of lie upon lie we have today. Ok, then. Thank you again, sir. Now I understand.
He's a different kind of charlatan. More like Poornima than RFK Jr. He is picking up on the anti-virus meme and doing it badly. He seems to affirm Lanka but does not know the basics of his experiment.
And he did not need to do the cell culture 90 times. With the same resources, he could design something interesting, if he had any ideas. He could do the experiment twice, write to me and ask for coverage, and I would do a fantastic public article affirming the the CPE is bullshit. Instead, he uses his work to go to war with his neighbors.
I think the idea is to just get attention and funding and to diminish the excellent work of people like Massey and Mark Bailey. To critique them by saying "they need to be in the lab" is absurd...they are legal and scientific investigators...taking up different angles of what must be seen from different points of view and where they comport.
Massey has hundreds of agencies and institutions admitting there is no virus...as in, not a single one. This should be headlines everywhere. But behold, Andrews says it's worthless as does RFK Jr.
Eric, I must admit this interview was difficult to listen to. Yes Jamie is not a good speaker on his own topic. Jamie was defensive - possibly because he felt attacked. I was very surprised by your mention of “pathogen” when you have been on the “no virus” side for the past several years. There is no virus. There is no pathogen. And Jamie’s experiments are merely funded and directed by him as he is not a scientist. Jamie is using the virologist techniques and methodology against them to prove that virology is a pseudoscience. Lanka’ experiments were the same. Showing that the same “particles” that are claimed to be “virus” are just the breakdown of dead and dying cells. Also proving that truth cannot be obtained by killing a living being in order to study it.
Yes Jamie is not a good advocate for his own data, and his personality is trying, but his data supports the no virus/no pathogen hypothesis and debunks the germ theory.
Indeed, when you asked about Farewell to Virology, and he didn't reply "it's brilliant", I should have known.
And yes, I must confess, here before the whole world, I did not read the article, but went straight to the interview, that's why I didn't get it. I will now to my room to give myself twenty slashes! Eric, please forgive me.
Slashes? Did I mean lashes? Slash is like a cut, right? Oh, maldito inglês....sorry. PS - apparently I wasn't the only one that didn't read the article before watching the video. Hmmm.
I wanted to write something similar because I am new to this topic. I've done some research on vaccines but I did not know the rabbit hole was this deep so virology having no grounds is new to me.
Your description of nitpicking specific words and phrases is spot on. This seems like a typical mainstream method of discrediting someone with a complete loss of focus on what really matters...
To be honest, Eric and everyone he supports in this article could have done a lot better if it was never posted.
I was very confused seeing some of the same type of articles a while back but after reading this article and watching the interview I must admit it's clear what's really going on.
Do tell, what is really going on?
Virology was already falsified, the end. He's not further strengthening no-virus when he continually makes snide, disparaging and inaccurate remarks about the work of the no-virus people who came before him and pretends that there's an onus on us to run experiments. Quite the opposite. And by communicating in such a sloppy manner he makes it easier for critics to dismiss all of us. And no, it's not as simple as CPE yes/no if you carefully read the studies. In some they make it sound like a binary, in others they approach it as a matter of degree. And Jamie cannot make comparisons between his Countessa (sp?) results and studies that didn't use Countessa, obviously. And did you miss the part where he threatend legal action and told Eric to fuck off for.... asking questions? This is typical behaviour for Jamie. I've also been on the receiving end of his wild accusations and "fuck offs".
THIS IS A VERY GOOD SUGGESTION
"we go for a week of discussions about terminologies and journalism ethics"
This is bizarre. Eric, Jamie showed incredible patience in this interview. He didn’t put a foot wrong.
This felt exactly like listening to Kirsch and Rancourt.
But whereas Kirsch is I think deliberately being daft I refuse to believe you too are a Tier 2 distractor.
This is a lamentable performance Eric.
🥲🥲🥲
Also I am not understanding something in your viewpoint, West. Are you saying that these questions do not need to be asked and that the public does not have a right to know the answers? Even most "health show" hosts can't get into the tech details like I can; nobody has till now.
I wish you the best Eric. Maybe we go our separate ways. There is no way I will ever understand how you are not aware how completely ludicrous this ‘interview’ was.
If it's that obvious I should understand. I have prepared since June, and this is consistent with the rest of my body of work. But you're still not answering my question: do these questions deserve to be asked, and answered? Just because you don't want to know doesn't mean other people do not deserve to know.
There is no question you asked that isn’t being asked by many. The main point is you almost wilfully in a Kirschian way misunderstood everything Jamie said.
These control studies - and they most certainly are control studies, completely destroy virology ‘isolation’.
Yes it was bollocks anyway, but because of Lanka and now Andrews, all tissue culture experiments are rendered pointless.
You seemed to go to wild lengths to not understand this simple point and so many others.
If I didn’t trust your direction which I do I would simply dismiss this as deliberate obfuscation on your part.
I don’t understand but I would like to just walk away. It’s all too bewildering
Bye
You keep saying good bye which suggests you are trying to turn your back on the discussion. Did you read the article?
And is "fuck you" an appropriate response from a man doing "open source" public science when asked for his lab reports?
also you are making an assumption that I am **pretending** not to understand, which means being disingenuous. Has it occurred to you that you are not understanding the basis of my questions? And on what grounds are you assuming that I am only making believe? What is your actual reference point?
No. I said plainly that i am sure you are not pretending to understand. I make a careful point of saying clearly several times.
It is somewhat ironic, that you didn’t understand that I was saying clearly that you are not pretending to understand despite my careful pains to make this clear!
I will hypothesise that sometimes you get an idea in your head and are unable to listen to or consider the words of the other person.
Jamie gets my vote as most patient man alive after perhaps Ian Davies.
I don’t think I would lasted half an hour without getting very irritated
Please, this was a crazy crazy ‘interview’.
Accidentally daft? When did that occur?
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"
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????
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.
Jeremy "I like Viruses engineered from Bat Anuses" Nell here is such a scientifically illiterate coward he had to run away from interviewing me, knowing he would be swept aside with ease, just like the loon astrology wierdos that he keeps company with.
What are you talking about? 😂 I neither emailed you nor invited you onto my podcast.
So are you agreeing to do an interview then? Great, when shall we line this up for?
Jamie was knowledgeable and well spoken, thank you for bringing attention to the project!
Next week we hope to hear Jamie interrogating Eric on the data for his astrological claims. Can’t wait!
I always provide my data, including charts and how I source the time. I also have a clear editorial policy on my use of astrology. I have never once claimed that astrological interpretation is a scientific matter — only the casting of the chart. You can find my astrology guidelines here:
https://planetwaves.net/terms-of-service-and-editorial-policy/
Use of Astrology
Astrology is not the truth. As presented in the 21st century, it is a form of personally applicable fiction, or a symbolic and metaphoric framework through which to view ourselves and the world. The use of astrology is therefore by definition the expression of opinion or interpretation.
Astrology derives from an ancient point of view that is not established by modern science, and the use of astrology by our writers, editors, readers and clients is offered as an analytical framework rather than as an exposition of objective reality. We do not attempt to predict the future using astrology.
Nothing in anything published by Planet Waves, Inc., is meant to constitute medical, legal or financial advice. We enthusiastically encourage people to seek the help of those qualified to assist with specific medical, legal and financial questions.
Planet Waves, Inc. asserts a First Amendment religious right (under both the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise” clause) for all discussions about or including astrology, and for all of our published works in any medium.
You are a bloodhound for bullshit.
Jamie was incredible. Such patience. A brilliant performance in the face of unexplainable nonsense from man I have previously admired.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
I hope you get the mental health care that you are clearly in need of.
Cheers
Jamie
Is there a virus?
Mental health issues with you.
Adios.
Bingo 🎯 “Never let a crisis go your way waste.”
"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 :)
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.
Case well stated and well made. Nothing i need to add, nothing i need to say. Except that this is ..just exactly perfect.
Tight