In a recently posted 11 minute video introduction to his Control Studies Substack, Jamie Andrews makes some strikingly anarchist-sounding statements. Not only is he giving virology a run for its money, but he lays the blame for misleading and mistreating the public squarely at the feet of the way states operate.
Similarly to German microbiologist Stefan Lanka, Jamie thinks a new way of conducting science is called for—one that is open source, accessible and understandable and that is peer-reviewed by the reasoning public. He also calls for becoming less dependent on the State in whatever ways we can, which I believe is a large part of the intentions of this publication, and reminiscent of what another Substacker we featured,
…to invite people to come together and embody a new way of living (voluntarily) to begin to redefine themselves as a completely separate and distinct culture (or “Parallel Society”) from the statist model.
It may be good to remember that just a decade prior to 2020, governments around the world were bamboozled into pouring billions of dollars into vaccine contracts in response to WHO claims of a terrible H1N1 pandemic. Wolfgang Wodarg and a handful of other European parlimentarians were able to throttle the madness by speaking out about exaggerations of the threats, about untested vaccines and about vaccine manufacturers’ vested interests. A 2010 Nature editorial decrying Wodarg and in defense of govenment decisions and of what it refers to with unveiled affection as “the life sciences industry” paints with uncanny predilection the picture of exactly where things would be headed next time around:
Faced with the certainty of a new influenza virus to which a large proportion of the world's population was immunologically naive, and the uncertainty of the predictive epidemiological models, governments had little political choice but to act, anticipating something close to the worst case scenario. And the options they had at hand were somewhat limited.
Closing national borders is an option, although this is increasingly difficult given the volumes of travel and international trade that characterize our global village.
Another option is to close schools. Although this would restrict spread, it comes with a substantial cost. In September 2009, a report from the Brookings Institution found that closing all schools in the United States for four weeks might cost between $10 billion and $47 billion in parent absenteeism from work. A Swedish study published in the same month (Eurosurveillance14, 5–11, 17 September 2009) showed that even without school closure, work absenteeism would represent a substantial economic burden as workers became ill themselves or took time from work to tend sick children. The authors estimated that vaccination against pandemic H1N1 influenza would be highly cost-effective, saving ∼€250 ($340) million. Other economic forecasters painted still gloomier pictures; in late 2009, the World Bank estimated that a worldwide pandemic could wipe out 0.7–4.8% of global gross domestic product.
Thus, it is difficult to conclude, even now, that governments that bought into preventative strategies for H1N1 made the wrong decision. Although the nature of the threat may have been overstated, the WHO, CDC and other authorities had little scientific evidence at the beginning of the H1N1 pandemic to discount the most dire predictions of fatalities.
Unfortunately, Wodarg never brought the dubious science of virology into the public spotlight but only the epidemiological statistics. Without a DIRECT CHALLENGE to the IDEOLOGICAL BASIS of viral contagion, the pandemic propagandist alliance had time to redouble their efforts with a special focus on media censorship and control of the narrative for the next go around.
Virology IS the alleged scientific reasoning behind pandemics, lockdowns, mask mandates, small business closures and failures, the transfer of billions (or trillions) from “public” coffers into the hands of the ultra-wealthy… and for dozens of poisonous torture-jabs ever-added to the childhood vaccine schedule.
It’s time we look this so-called “science” squarely in the eye and see it for what it is.
While Nevermore is a diverse collective of anarchist thinkers and writers and the premises of this essay may not coincide with the opinions of all, hopefully we can at least agree that science should be accessible and accountable to the people, and not the sole domains of state and corporate-funded institutions in the interests of BIG PHARMA.
I, for one, envision a day when, once the pseudosciences of 20th century arrogance and state and corporate-controlled visions of reality have been overcome, at least a significant number of us can get on to living more naturally, freely and harmoniously—truer to who we are as children of the green earth.
In this essay, it will be shown that modern VIROLOGY’S GOLD STANDARD for alleged “ISOLATION” of “viruses”—the cell culture— has been INVALIDATED.
BOTH the observation of cytopathic effects (i.e. cell lysis), AND the appearance of globules with DISTINCTIVE FEATURES and SIZE assumed to be those of viral entities, are not dependent on the introduction of a sick patient sample or of a “virus-contaminated” tissue substrate.
Understanding scientific experiments is crucial to comprehending science. One of the easiest ways to evaluate the results of an experiment is to compare it with the results of its control experiment. Control experiments are also the easiest way to demonstrate flaws in the reasoning behind an experiment or in the methods.
In the face of a literal BARRAGE of refutations by a fast-growing ARMY of virus skeptics, a number of persons defending the assertion that viruses are proven entities—and that virology is a validated and well-established science—have holed themselves up with claims that control experiments are not a necessary and essential part of science … controls are only needed in special circumstances … controls have already been done … we don’t need more experiments … and so on.
On the other side of the spectrum we have someone like Jamie Andrews who says that, in his view, “The Control Is Science.”
Personally, I find his argument quite convincing:
The Control as part of the Scientific Method has been worn away by attrition over the last Century or two whereby in most modern scientific publications it is rarely given any sort of notice. If noted I have never seen one with a specific methodology FOR the control, it is just assumed that it has been performed adequately.
I see this as no mistake. To me, this is a deliberate way of usurping Science’s greatest safety mechanism, THE part of an entire experiment where PROOF lays. Most would agree that a Control is a necessary part of the Scientific Method. I would go much further than that and say: The Control IS Science.
Science: “The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained”.
Michael Palmer MD, while admitting that control experiments are sometimes *helpful*, complains that virus skeptics are too demanding, they ask too much (emphasis added):
… while control experiments are usually a good idea and can prevent us from prematurely accepting an erroneous hypothesis as “sufficiently tested”, a real or alleged lack of control experiments does not automatically invalidate the experiments in question. Controls are not a necessary or sufficient ritual to ensure that one is doing “real science.” A control experiment serves to rule out an alternative hypothesis, usually a trivial one, which could explain the same observations that I want to explain with my preferred hypothesis. It is pointless to call for “more controls” in general, as the virus skeptics like to do, without precisely naming the alternative hypotheses that would have to be ruled out in each case.
I don’t know about you, but to me a lot of what Palmer says sounds like explaining away the problem.
My intention is not to degrade Dr. Palmer—some may recall my favorable review of his well-researched book, Hiroshima Revisited. I also hold Palmer’s co-author in defense of viruses, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, in high esteem. I see Bhakdi as a kind, reasonable and very likeable soul and am grateful his important contribution in opposing the vaccine madness of these recent years. Yet, I have trouble comprehending their defense of poorly tested assumptions in the case of virology.
I think that the kind of control experiments required for virology to be validated and the alternative hypotheses to be tested have already been clearly stated by more than one person. For example, Stefan Lanka has proposed that there are 7 steps used in virology and that each of these steps needs to be validated using appropriate controls.
Just to take the first of these steps, the cell culture, the alternative hypothesis is that it is the starvation of the cells and addition of antibiotics that causes the effects, rather than the ASSUMED presence of a virus. The type of control experiment prescribed is to perform the same steps but without the addition of a human sample alleged to contain a virus…
Cytopathic effects in cell cultures are claimed by virologists to be evidence of both the presence of viruses and of their ability to cause disease.
Luckily, people like Stefan Lanka and Jamie Andrews put their money where their mouth is. They don’t just say proper controls are necessary and lacking but are doing something about it.
During the measles virus trials of 2014-2017, Lanka commissioned control experiments to be performed by an independent German laboratory. Those experiments were performed as stated above: a cell culture experiment following the protocol used by virologists but without the addition of a patient sample. The results confirmed just what was suspected. No sample alleged to contain a virus was needed in order to observe cytopathic effects (CPE) that virologists attribute to “viruses.”
(At the end of this article, I will discuss more control experiments being conducted by Lanka and, independently, by a team of researchers around Jamie Andrews.)
Enders and Peebles (1954)
Lanka wasn’t the first to conduct such an experiment. Amazingly, the very originators of the idea that viruses could be “isolated” using cell cultures (with the addition of antibiotics allegedly to assure that bacteria wouldn’t be involved in any of the effects, but ignoring that antibiotics themselves damage or kill cells), performed a control experiment whose results invalidated their own hypothesis—results they explained away with more claims of viruses.
The paper, a classic in virology and the first to come up with the idea of “culturing” viruses, is titled, Propogation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathic Agents from Patients with Measles. Published in 1954, it was the first paper submitted to the German courts in the Bardens vs. Lanka trials as alleged “proof” of the existence of a measles virus.
Although the paper doesn’t mention a “control experiment” per se, it does briefly describe one in a section toward the end.
"A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles."
Notice the confusing and misleading wording: “A second agent was obtained…” As if they “obtained” (!) anything that could be described as an “agent” in any of these experiments. All they did was observe cytopathic effects (and possibly siphon off the antibiotic-laden supernatant from the “culture” and then claim it was a “filterable, transmissable agent.”)
But the real eye-opener is that this was an “uninoculated culture”—i.e. no patient sample was added—yet they got cytopathic effects all the same. Not to be defeated, they go on to say:
“But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of measles were not observed.”
Again, they assume that they have (accidentally?) “infected” the cells with a cytopathogenic “agent” (ignoring that they’ve starved and poisoned them). They claim that since they observe a difference in the fixed and stained, “uninoculated” yet somehow “infected” cultures and their other “inoculated” cultures, that this means they have “isolated” distinct “agents” (measles and non-measles). The only thing that is clear is that they have made a lot of assumptions. The distinct features they claimed to be unique to measles virus would be seen by other researchers in “uninoculated” cultures as well.1
If you aren’t confused enough already, take a look of this chart on “how to culture a virus.”
No more controls or questions needed, right?
Enders wasn’t the only one who got results countering his assumption about the presence of a measles virus.
Aldhissla’s article titled Cytopathic Effects in Uninoculated Cultures documents a whole slew of such studies. The article is thorough and well written—he does an even more thorough job of debunking Enders and Peebles than I have—and I won’t try to reproduce his work here.
When virolgists see cytopathic effects in uninoculated cultures, just like Enders their assumption is always that the tissue substrate is contaminated with an unknown virus.
This is a form of logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent. It is first assumed that if a virus were present there would be cytopathic effects. But since cytopathic effects are observed even when a “virus” is not intentionally introduced, it is then assumed there must be contamination in the form of a virus. This ignores other factors that could cause the observed effects (namely, cell starvation and poisoning) and affirms that ONLY a virus could cause such effects (even when no “virus” has been observed in the first place). The REAL observervation of cytopathic effects is attributed to an IMAGINED “virus.”
As will be seen below, when electron microscopy is sometimes performed on these “cultured” samples, the observation of formations in the culture with distinct morphologies of various kinds is also not evidence of “viruses” but simply of the breakdown products of the dying cells.
Partially in response to claims that Lanka’s methods were flawed, a team of researchers surrounding Jamie Andrews are in the midst of performing the most rigorous series of control experiments ever conducted in relation to how alleged “viruses” are “detected,” “isolated,” “cultured,” “visualized” and studied. They have already completed a series of control experiments testing the cell culture hypothesis that cytopathic effects (CPE) and the appearance of “virus-like” formations is evidence of the presence of “viruses.” This to me is the most compelling evidence yet that virology is a pseudoscience.
For a complete description of the experiments, see these interviews on dpl’s Substack:
These experiments have not only thoroughly shown that cytopathic effects derive from cell culture methods—and these alone without the addition of a patient sample—but that the appearance of various “virus-like particles” similar to what are claimed to be SARS-CoV2, HIV and measles virus can also be seen in the uninoculated culture on tissue substrate of the highest, purist quality. Jamie’s team has carefully selected only the best quality culturing materials to ensure no viruses are introduced at any stage of the process, yet in the small number of electron micrographs they received back from an accredited lab, one can observe the distinctive features and size of these particles.
I highly recommend watching the entire video. (See minutes 38:00 to 53:00 for a run through of the Transmission Electron Microscopy images.)
Jamie’s team is also involved in control experiments on “antibody” tests and will be conducting many other controls inluding “genome sequence” alignment of alleged viruses as funds become available. To follow their work, subscribe to Jamie Andrews’ and dpl’s newsletters.
Tobin Owl is an independent researcher/writer. Over the past four years he’s conducted in-depth investigation focusing on the history of modern medicine, medical science, geopolitical conspiracy and the environment. Articles written prior to his move to Substack are found on his website Cry For The Earth
NEVERMORE MEDIA is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Related:
Virus “isolation” and “culturing” isn’t the biggest problem with virology…
John, I got curious about "Ring around the rosies" and decided to see what I could find. Sources mentioned variously either the Black Death (which presumably dates back to the 1300s) or the Great Plague of London in the 17th century. The closest I got to finding a primary source was the following:
"Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about, as the first known mention of a plague interpretation of "Ring Around the Rosie" didn't show up until James Leasor published The Plague and the Fire in 1961."
If you know of anything dating back further than 1961 let me know. I have lot of interest in these old epidemics.
On the bubonic plague, I've read a book from the late 1800s called "Are Epidemics Contagious?" written by the British monarch's Cholera Inspector to the West Indies, published after the author's death at ripe old age. He puts forth evidence that neither the plague, nor cholera, nor even smallpox were contagious.
John, I got curious about "Ring around the rosies" and decided to see what I could find. Sources mentioned variously either the Black Death (which presumably dates back to the 1300s) or the Great Plague of London in the 17th century. The closest I got to finding a primary source was the following:
"Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about, as the first known mention of a plague interpretation of "Ring Around the Rosie" didn't show up until James Leasor published The Plague and the Fire in 1961."
If you know of anything dating back further than 1961 let me know. I have lot of interest in these old epidemics.
On the bubonic plague, I've read a book from the late 1800s called "Are Epidemics Contagious?" written by the British monarch's Cholera Inspector to the West Indies, published after the author's death at ripe old age. He puts forth evidence that neither the plague, nor cholera, nor even smallpox were contagious.
Highly recommend
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/virus-bacteriophage-single-virus-genomics/