Radical Health Rebel
Welcome to the Radical Health Rebel Podcast, where Leigh, a renowned Functional Medicine Practitioner, CHEK Practitioner, CHEK Faculty Instructor, Active Release Techniques® Therapist, Emotion Code Practitioner, author, and podcast host, takes you on a journey to achieve optimal health, wellness, and happiness. With his extensive training and years of clinical experience, Leigh provides a truly holistic approach to health that has proven effective even when other methods have failed.
Join us every week for insightful discussions and expert interviews focusing on chronic pain, gut health, and skin health. Leigh's diverse background and passion for holistic healing brings you valuable knowledge and practical tips from leading experts in the field. Whether you're struggling with persistent health issues or simply looking to enhance your well-being, the Radical Health Rebel Podcast is your go-to resource for achieving a vibrant and healthy life. Tune in and start your journey to radical health today!
Radical Health Rebel
151 - Are Viruses Real? The Shocking Truth Behind Viral Control Studies with Jamie Andrews
This episode is only available to subscribers.
Radical Health Rebel Podcast +
Support the show & get subscriber-only content.In this episode of the Radical Health Rebel Podcast, I sit down with Jamie Andrews, a man who has taken it upon himself to challenge one of the most foundational beliefs in modern medicine — the existence of viruses as defined by virologists.
Jamie has organised and conducted control studies to test what virologists claim to be viruses, and what he’s uncovered is nothing short of astonishing. These findings suggest that what we've been led to believe about viruses may be fundamentally flawed — or even deliberately misleading.
This episode blows wide open the mainstream narrative, exposing potential lies, corruption, tyranny, and much worse — all perpetuated by those in positions of authority. But it doesn’t stop there. The implications of this fraudulent narrative could be catastrophic, potentially leading to the unnecessary culling of livestock globally and contributing to famine and mass suffering.
It’s highly recommended to watch this episode on The Radical Health Rebel Rumble Channel or on our Substack, as Jamie walks through a detailed presentation, showing actual slides from the research. These visuals clearly demonstrate that what virologists are claiming to be viruses simply cannot be viruses — and seeing the evidence for yourself makes the conclusions even more undeniable.
We did experience a few technical glitches during the recording, but I believe the final version is clear enough to deliver the impact this vital information deserves.
Brace yourself — this episode is packed with insights that may shock you, challenge long-held beliefs, and ignite a powerful call for truth.
Stay tuned — and prepare to rethink everything.
We discussed:
0:35
Episode Introduction
3:00
Jamie's Journey into Virus Skepticism
11:03
Historical Contagion Studies & Failed Experiments
18:00
Spanish Flu and Modern Virus Testing
26:16
Control Studies: Debunking Cell Culture Isolation
42:45
Electron Microscopy: Finding "Viruses" Where They Can't Exist
54:24
PCR Tests and Antigen Tests Examined
1:09:47
Summary and Implications of Findings
1:36:54
Conclusion and Call to Action
You can find Jamie @:
https://substack.com/@controlstudies
Don't forget to leave a Rating for the podcast!
You can find Leigh @:
Leigh's website - https://www.bodychek.co.uk/
Leigh's books - https://www.bodychek.co.uk/books/
Substack - https://substack.com/@radicalhealthrebel
YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@radicalhealthrebelpodcast
Rumble Channel - https://rumble.com/user/RadicalHealthRebel
Leigh's courses:
StickAbility - https://stickabilitycourse.com/
Mastering Client Transformation (professional course) - https://www.functionaldiagnosticnutrition.com/mastering-client-transformation/
Eliminate Adult Acne Programme - https://eliminateadultacne.com/
Now that really debunks the visceral what is a virus? Because they've the thing that they claim is a virus is not a virus. Therefore, to a certain extent, we have shown that those things do not exist.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the Radical Health Rebel podcast. I'm your host, lee Brandom. This work started for me several decades ago when I started to see the impact I could make on people, helping them to identify the root cause of their health problems that no doctor could figure out, including serious back, knee, shoulder and neck injuries, acne and eczema issues, severe gut health problems, even helping couples get pregnant after several IVF treatments had failed. And it really moves me to be able to help people in this way, and that is why I do what I do and why we have this show.
Speaker 2:In this episode of the Radical Health Rebel podcast, I sit down with Jamie Andrews, a man who has taken it upon himself to challenge one of the most foundational beliefs in modern medicine the existence of viruses as defined by virologists. Jamie has organized and conducted control studies to test what virologists claim to be viruses, and what he's uncovered is nothing short of astonishing. These findings suggest that what we've been led to believe about viruses may fundamentally be flawed or even deliberately misleading. This episode blows wide open the mainstream narrative, exposing potential lies, corruption, tyranny and much worse, all perpetuated in the impositions of authority. But it doesn't stop there. The implications of this fraudulent narrative could be catastrophic, potentially leading to the unnecessary future culling of livestock globally and contributing to famine and mass suffering.
Speaker 2:It's highly recommended to watch this episode on the Radical Health Rebel Rumble channel or on the Radical Health Rebel sub stack, as Jamie walks through a detailed presentation showing actual slides from the research. These visuals clearly demonstrate that what virologists are claiming to be viruses simply cannot be viruses, and seeing the evidence for yourself makes the conclusions even more undeniable. We did experience a few technical glitches during the recording, but I believe the final version is clear enough to deliver the impact this vital information deserves. Brace yourself. This episode is packed with insights that may shock you, challenge long-held beliefs and ignite a powerful call for truth. Stay tuned and prepare to rethink everything. Jeremy Andrews, welcome to the Radical Health Rebel podcast. It's great to have you on the show.
Speaker 1:Hi Lee, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm really excited about this episode, so I just want to kind of set the scene before we really jump in. So before 2020, I was already quite skeptical of the mainstream media and, through my work, I became increasingly disillusioned with the medical community, especially when clients would return from seeing doctors and tell me some of the crazy things that they were being told. What I hadn't realized until I read Contagion Theory by Dr Tom Cowan in 2020 is that the entire foundation of Contagion Theory and the very concept of viruses hadn't been substantiated by evidence that could pass scientific scrutiny. As someone you know, I value truth and real science over. You know what I consider to be propaganda and fraudulent science.
Speaker 2:You know I've spent considerable time studying the work of Tom Cowan, andy Kaufman, mark and Sam Bailey, stefan Lenker, mike Stone, also Daniel Reuters and I'm fortunate enough to have had Mark Bailey and Daniel Reuters on the show. What I find intriguing is that when you suggest the idea that contagion or viruses have never been proven to exist, it's often incredibly difficult for most people to grasp and, in many cases, impossible to accept. Right? It's like you're telling them the sky is purple, right? So, before we dive in to your viral control studies. What I think it'd be great for the audience to hear is a little bit about your journey into this research. So how did you get involved in studying the subject of virusism and what inspired you to explore this field?
Speaker 1:It really is. I've lived it. I've lived the journey of going very quickly from somebody who would have if I had told myself what I knew. Now, just on the high street. I skepticism of uh vaccines. My son was um. Unfortunately, I saw with my own eyes vaccine injured in 2018. Um. The early childhood vaccinations, um stopped him defecating for um nearly a month. Um, and went from being an engaged, smiley baby into one that wouldn't hold eye contact, one that would cry when any new person came into a room. Now, fortunately, touchwood, we noticed, myself and my wife that this had happened. We saw it in front of our faces. No-transcript. Durham.
Speaker 1:They got me to look at some of the data which was to do with essentially global warming, which was, I mean, they didn't uh say like that, but it was. It was logging paleo temperatures. At the time was the um uh, the most accurate way to log temperatures of the earth, which was in ice cores in voshtok, a frozen lake in antarctica, and we did mass spectrometry work on that as an undergrad. We got the the data and we kind of all mapped it out. And also they had data. It was oxygen isotopes. So they measure heavy and light oxygen isotopes. The lighter ones evaporate off in warmer temperatures. And so you kind of get this you know where there's heavier isotopes to oxygen 16 to oxygen 80 and you can kind of map it out and that tells you the as what they would say was the most accurate paleo temperatures. And when you map it against carbon dioxide, you suddenly see that there's about a six to 800 degree year lag, um year lag, and, uh, it shows categorically with their own data that co2 is not a driver of global warming.
Speaker 1:And you know, I, as a kind of you know, cocky undergrad I it was my hand was going up and saying um, have you, have you kind of seen this like what you know, and it's a bit of a taboo subject within geology is you don't really talk about global warming. It's not a, it's not really a thing. You know it's. It's just kind of one of those fad kind of politic, political things. But you know, I saw then as an undergrad, that the entire kind of global warming thing like that was disseminated from the un was a scam. And so when it was, when 2020 rolled around and I saw the players that were happening you know, the World Health Organization as part of the UN, were rolling out these things, you know, on a mass scale. It was alarm bells were going off. It was like right, okay, well, I immediately don't trust them. Whatever they say that they're going to take, you know they're going to give a vaccine I ain't touching that. But in terms of a virus, take you know they're going to give a vaccine I ain't touching that. But in terms of a virus, um, I I was none the wiser.
Speaker 1:You know when, when the news started rolling out the end of january, early february, um, I thought that there was this transmissible pathogen and, um, my wife is, uh, of mixed indian heritage and we have, um, some friends, uh, that are that are in New Delhi and Mumbai, that deal with people on the streets there, with very impoverished people, and I was getting some feedback from some of these friends during the early stages of 2020, just kind of saying, you know, look, what's it like there? You know, we were being told in the Western media that people were falling over dead in the street and this transmissible pathogen was coming along to healthy people and just jumping between them. And so for me, when I was seeing these rolling data and I started to get very into the data, what was, you know, the, the ifi infection fatality rate and all of these things. I had all these spreadsheets in front of me and just kind of going okay, well, trying to make head nor tail of it as it was, as it was kind of rolling out and, um, I was speaking to a couple of these friends and the, according to the world health Organization, the data was there that this pathogen had arrived in New Delhi, for instance. So they had had a couple of people that had died from COVID.
Speaker 1:So it was there, in these packed cities, where people were living on the streets in squalid conditions, you know, they're malnutrition, they're diseased up to the eyeballs. They are living next to each other, you know, elbow to elbow. The streets are littered filled with garbage, filled with animal excrement, filled with all sorts. Yet the feedback that I was getting from these friends was that there was no change, there was nothing. The feedback that I was getting from these friends was that there was no change, there was nothing. And so, again, this kind of rang a real alarm bell to me that just the theory in terms of germ theory should be that these people with quote unquote compromised immune systems should be dead. They should all be dead. It should be. This person gets covid and then the whole street gets it because they're they're going back and you know, you will see, you may pneumonia in this person, this person, this person.
Speaker 1:So, um, that started to send off alarm bells and for me, uh, that's when I I kind of started to look for myself and it was to do with causality. You know, for me as an objective scientist and I mean, this really isn't you know how how the industry works is is that they never really go to the source, they never really go. Okay, let's actually go and check if it works the way that it does. And so, kind of finding these things on Google Scholar, which is, you know, the repository for basically anything that you want to try and search for, is not really clear. So it took me a little bit of time to kind of find what I had in my mind that I was looking for. In my mind I had to find people that were given viruses on purpose. So you take somebody and you put it directly up their nose.
Speaker 1:So you know, I spent a little bit of time, you know, maybe two or three weeks, just typing in random stuff into Google Scholar, putting viruses up people's nose on purpose and eventually I started to find some of these papers and I found out that they were called a controlled human infection model and they were doing them. You know, despite some of the claims that there's ethics involved I mean not the fact that these people have, you know, very little ethics when it comes to, you know, testing vaccines or you know, certainly, animal models I mean, what they do to animal models and these things is just disgusting. But they do, despite claiming, you know, ethics and morals, have done these and I started to find more and more and more have done these and I started to find more and more and more. The some of the first ones that I found.
Speaker 1:Um was one in the us conducted by the navy, a guy called jm rosenow, with the spanish flu, which had so many similarities between covid, where they had all this mask propaganda, they had kind of social distancing, they had all of this kind of playbook for control and control of the population when it came out um. So it was a very good kind of benchmark to kind of go right. Well, they had this back in 1918 and they attempted it. I mean, they said that some of the figures and they did this post-event, sometimes a couple of decades after. They reimagined the figures up to somewhere in the region of 100 million people. I mean, it's ridiculous, but that's what they were claiming that this cold-like, this flu-like pathogen was causing people. This flu-like pathogen was causing people. Yet they did this not only once. They did this in a string of contagion studies where they took every single pathway of supposed contagion and tried to infect healthy people. So they took the tissues, they took the bronchial alveolar lavage, the stuff on your chest, the mucus, the spit. They took the tissues, they took the bronchial alveolar lavage, the stuff on your chest, the mucus, the spit. They took the blood and they rubbed it into healthy individuals.
Speaker 1:The most affected age group and gender demographic. The average age of death was 27 and a half in males. Now, just given the fact that the backdrop was the First World War, when the people who were fighting were, on average, 27 and a half year old, fighting age, males, it's quite strange that, you know, with every single other flu ever recorded, the average age of death is, you know, at least 70. You know, and with COVID it was, you know it was, I think it was 79, wasn't it? And it was, I think it was 79, wasn't it? You know, basically the average age of death. Normally life expectancy was exactly the same as the average age of death, but with the Spanish flu it was 27.5. So that you know.
Speaker 1:So, supposedly the most susceptible, and they did everything that they could, what they consider to be infected material, and doing that, they also got these healthy participants to sit by a bed and have people that were seriously ill with these, the symptoms of spanish flu cough in their faces. They had direct conversations with them for up to five minutes and moved along a line of these sick people and had them hug and kiss them on the cheeks and things like that. And so these were kind of you know, in in quotations the most natural transmission pathways and the results after this of three times with 100 people, so in totality 300 attempts at doing this, with all of these different pathways tested. Not a single person got sick, not a single person got any sort of cold or flu-like symptoms, symptoms. And so it was strange to me that I looked through these papers and gone. Well, how is it then that you're saying that there is transmission? And so this was a hundred years old and I started to kind of go okay, well, maybe they've just kind of buried them in the future. So I started to look.
Speaker 1:Or in other diseases you know now the cold and flu is. You know the symptomologies are very open, right, you know it can be anything from. You know, a low-grade fever, runny nose, rhinitis. You know, inflammation in the nasal passages, elevated heart rate. You know these things can be basically anything. You know, when you present to a doctor, you know with any of these things they're going to tell you drink some water and go home and rest. You know it's not. You know these things aren't really you know a disease.
Speaker 1:So I started to look into some of the more obvious ones. You know polio, smallpox, hiv, and I started to dig up these papers where they were doing this. You know hiv in 2007 as the largest cohort study ever conducted of any any virus uh, it's a 10-year study. So these kind of time frames are just unheard of. Basically, in clinical science, you know where they're testing drugs, but they had discordant HIV positive and negative sexually active partners take place in a 10-year study. A 10-year study. Um, it's a lady called nancy padian et al. Um and uh, out of that in 10 years in these discordant couples, there was no zero conversions. So they said that their prophylactic use was, um, uh, it was a maximum of 30 percent of the couples, when entering into this, said that they had any sort of use of prophylactics whilst engaging in sex. On the one hand, they tell you that there's this sexually transmitted disease called HIV 175 discordant couples. There is not a single, um, not a single case of hiv being transferred.
Speaker 1:When you actually kind of zoom in with the goggles, when you actually kind of, you know, focus in on these things, and so, um, it's that kind of disparity, the same with there's, there's all sorts. There's chicken pox, there's measles. I mean, you always hear of this anecdote of chickenpox. You know, we went to the chickenpox parties and we came back and we my kid went there and then I came back with chickenpox. Well, they've studied this in in controlled settings, and that's what controlled science seeks to do is to remove all of the variables, remove all of the doubt, by taking this thing that they consider to be a virus and putting it directly up people's noses. And they did this with chickenpox, hess and hunger to germans.
Speaker 1:Um, german scientists did this and, um, you know it was in the region of 100 children, that they literally lanced the pustules of chickenpox on kids suffering with the symptomology of chickenpox. They lanced the. I mean it's pretty gross, right. But you know you have to study these things. I think it's good that people have studied them. Um, you know they've launched these chickenpox pustules, um, and they rub them into the eyes, the nose, the tonsils of healthy children and none of them exhibited, um, any symptoms of chickenpox whatsoever. And so when you look at the anecdotes of these chickenpox parties, you know there's a gulf of disparity between when they're intentionally trying to do it, when they're taking children from, that maybe aren't sharing. And here is the.
Speaker 1:The key to this, to kind of start to piece together the puzzle. That is, you know, what is observable because we can't deny that there are patterns of disease there certainly are, that's an observable thing is is that you do see members of families getting sick at the same time, with the same symptoms, but they're sharing the same environment, the same terrain, the same sociological factors, the same chemical factors in your environment, what they're spraying in the air, what they're putting in your food, what they're putting in your, in your water, what they're putting in all all around you are man-made things, you know, for instance, with polio, you know polio isn't a neuro neurological disease. Right, it's very different to the majority of the other things that you see again, different to the majority of the other things that you see again, compared to the flu, which is a very, you know, strict symptomology, where you have a fever they could kind of be crossed, you know, somewhat into the realms of measles, somewhat into the realms of chickenpox, apart from the rash. But where you have something like um polio, it's incredibly different. You know it's a, it's a neurological disease.
Speaker 1:And when you map polio with the usage of heavy metal, ddt, which was a pesticide that was used in agriculture, it it as soon as they started polio symptoms started. As soon as they started polio symptoms started. As soon as they stopped, polio symptoms disappeared. It is, it was caused by polio, by DDT, by the heavy metal poisoning, the leads and the arsenics that they put into these things, the same as anthrax. I mean, anthrax was called a woolsorter's disease and is actually not contagious. They claimed it on a biological pathogen bacteria.
Speaker 1:I think, and funnily enough, it was only prevalent and they called it the wool sorters disease because it was in um wool sorters, factories, um, that these people were getting these, these disease symptoms, and so again, you kind of look at the environment that they were in and then you start to find out that, well, what did they spray these sheep with when they were uh taking the, the um, uh, the, the when they were removing the wool? Well, they, they sprayed these sheep with lead and arsenic-based pesticides to um eradicate them of ticks, and you know, lice and uh, warble, fly and all, all sorts of stuff that um afflict, afflict livestock. So you know, when you see the pattern of disease and you see the um, the, the, the chemical in the environment, it's very easy to kind of put two and two together. You know, more often than not, especially with the flu and things like that which is a detox pathway, it's very difficult to kind of um match up uh the kind of what you see with contagion and what you and patterns of contagion and and how they manifest themselves, um. All in all, I found 200 papers, put them up on on twitter and um, uh started to get some real traction and one of the things that it kind of led me to was there was a distinct difference, a distinct kind of change in what happened in virology in 1954, because a guy called John Enders came along and he claimed to be able to isolate this virus.
Speaker 1:So before 1954, we had very kind of natural transmission studies or contagion studies where you know, they didn't really know what it was within the sputum but they hypothesized that it was something in the sputum that was causing disease or something within bodily fluids that was causing it. Whereas in 1954, john Enders came along and he took a cell culture so they can cut tissue out of humans and cryogenically freeze them and then you can regrow them in a Petri dish. And he regrew these cell lines they're used in clinical science, so drugs testing now and all sorts of testing in vitro so in the Petri dish and he squirted these cells with what he believed to be infected materials, so from somebody suffering from the symptoms of measles, and he noted that these cell lines were dying and he said, okay, well, they're dying because of a pathogen in there and this pathogen is replicating and therefore I have isolated the measles virus and he was given a nobel prize for this. Unfortunately for him is is that his control slide, where he forgot to put the infected material in the cell lines, died too and he kind of went okay, right, well, um, that's, they look different. That's what he says in his paper you can kind of go back to these original papers of isolated viruses and his control failed. The control where you're meant to show what is the actual effect. The causative agent was not in the control. So he actually kind of debunked his own methodology. But the history of science kind of has a neat glaze over that period of time.
Speaker 1:But from 1954 onwards the entire virological community or microbiological community said that they had what they considered to be a isolated virus. This is the virus and so really the latter stages of these um transmission studies leading up to now to modern times, they take what they believe to be purified virus and put it up people's noses. And as I was kind of going through this, I don't know this awakening this epiphany of maybe contagion doesn't work. In the time in the UK was health minister and he had done a lot of contagion studies himself. He did the largest influenza A contagion study ever conducted and I found this paper and interestingly it's one of the very few where he actually vaguely kind of turns over his hand and I remember it distinctly coming across it because there was a BBC documentary on it, looking through all of these papers, and she looks a bit kind of concerned and says you know, they've got a documentary on one of these contagion studies.
Speaker 1:And my heart kind of sank a little bit, you know, because I have been looking at these old, these old papers and these old things and I kind of thought, oh man, maybe, maybe I've just kind of convinced myself. You know, they've got the isolated virus now and they're putting it up people. You know they've got the isolated virus now and they're putting it up people's noses. They've obviously made people sick, right, they've obviously done what I've been looking for. And you know I felt like, okay, I'll watch it. And I, you know, I watched it through, watched it. It was about 40 minutes or something like that, where they show it's a hospital setting and they're you know it's all very dramatized, they're getting people laying on their back and it, uh, you know, dripping this stuff up their nose and they're telling us all about, you know, how deadly viruses are and it gets to the end of this 40 minute documentary, nothing. And I'm just like they didn't actually say you know, they didn't show people like coughing up mucus at the end of it like they didn't actually say you know they didn't show people like coughing up mucus at the end of it, or they didn't show anything. So I looked and jonathan van tam typed it into google scholar found it.
Speaker 1:It's called minimal transmission of influenza a virus and he actually kind of turns over his hand a little bit because it's one of the very few papers where they actually admit a lot of them. They kind of bury deep into the literature that nobody gets sick and later on they use the pcr tests to cover this all up. But they outright admit that nobody got sick. They actually had. Interestingly, in this particular study they put the virus up people's noses and they they called those people donors and then they put those donors in to a room with healthy people to try and and and transmit via air, via the air like a normal pathway, and the the people in that group. They didn't even test pcr positive.
Speaker 1:Nobody got sick out of any of them, either the people with the direct um virus up their nose or the people in the room. None of them got sick but none of them tested pcr positive. So they had to kind of turn over their hand a little bit. And the interesting the people in the room. None of them got sick but none of them tested PCR positive, so they had to kind of turn over their hand a little bit. And the interesting thing was is that after following this, I put that out on Twitter I went Jonathan Van Tam knows the transmission, you know. He knows the contagion is bunk because he did it in his own experiment and failed and I got kicked off of Twitter for that, unfortunately um, yeah, yeah that's it.
Speaker 1:Um, interestingly, I followed that and he was with, uh, mr neil ferguson, uh and his dodgy calculator, um, who some the brits will know all about. Neil fergus, you know, because he was the one giving all of these scary predictions through 2020 that were keeping people locked down conducted one on COVID. So they took what they believe to be the purified virus of SARS-CoV-2 and gave it directly up people's noses and nobody got sick. It's as simple as that. You know, when you you have to read between the lines with a few of these papers, because what they started to do because they need the funding, obviously it's a, you know, a trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry built off of the back of vaccines. So they never actually admit it fully that these are failing. What they do is they use symptoms, and rhinitis is a main one that they use. They say I think it was 30% of people that they gave this virus got rhinitis, so a swelling of the nasal lining. Now, what they don't kind of make pertinently obvious is is that these people had to do three pcr tests a day for three weeks. It's 56 pcr tests, so 56 times taking a nasal swab to the the very top of the nasal linings times taking a nasal swab to the the very top of the nasal linings and they have they have a tickly nose at the end of it rhinitis. So they're claiming and, and you can actually, when you use some of the control groups, um, there's a, there's a few studies, um, in the kind of late 2000s that, um, they did control groups where they gave them saline but continued to do the pcr test where they got, where they got rhinitis in the same um amount. So you can, you can tell, I mean it's, it's very obvious, you know the.
Speaker 1:The main thing is is that nobody got, you know, in, in, in over a quarter of a million people over the last century or two that have been experimented on with every single virus. Nobody has died, nobody has got bronchitis, pneumonia, um, nobody has been hospitalized out of a quarter of a million people ever tried. And that is about as unanimous and categorical as you could wish in any science To get. That kind of level of feedback is almost like a goldmine. If the glove were on the other hand, or the shoe were on the other hand, or, you know, the shoe were on the other foot, um, it's, it's, it's as categorical as it gets. So this is what has led me to I.
Speaker 1:I started to do this in, you know, 2020, and at the time I live in southwest france and um uh, here we had a uh a vaccine passport, so was banned from society. My wife and kids were banned from everything, every facet of society, because we refused to take these injections, that anything other than a supermarket we were not allowed into, and so this inspired me to start a project to make sure that this never happened again. And really that was through studying a chap, a doctor called Dr Stefan Lanker, who conducted control experiments, which really gets you onto the kind of existence question. Now, when it comes to your personal health, in terms of learning about my health and this is my payment for what I do it has been insurmountable to find out that my neighbor's cough, to find out that my neighbor's cough, my neighbor's sneeze, cannot kill me. I know that beyond any shadow of a doubt, but the question of political and scientific ramifications really comes down to the PCR test, and so if you want to learn about your health and learn about contagion, go and look at the contagion studies. But if you want to learn about your health and learn about contagion, go and look at the contagion studies. But if you want to try and stop you know the political machinations then it really comes down to um having to deal with the scientific validations for what they say.
Speaker 1:And and stephan lanka was one of those um he actually comes from a long line of dissidents um back to the hiv days in the 80s and a lady called eleni papadopoulos eleopoulos, who was part of the perth group who discovered through their own control studies that hiv didn't exist. Um, she was raising awareness through that and she was Stefan Lanker's mentor and she showed Stefan Lanker effectively how to falsify this scientific methodology. And it goes back to John Enders. Really, that's the starting place in in virological term and really, um, that's what's needed to show that there is no um legitimacy towards what they did in 2020, whether that be lockdowns or masks, and it really cuts at the root of um of what they did. So maybe I can, I'll share the uh, I'll share the screen, yeah, to get into the presentation.
Speaker 1:So I put together some um, a team of uh, about 100 researchers um looking into this and replicating Dr Stefan Lanker's work of control experiments to do with the virological methodology for showing that there is a virus and, more to the point, a PCR testcr test. Because, as as we discussed before, the pcr test is really the linchpin for how they have faked the pandemic, how they fake pandemics and how they fake uh viruses jumping from person to person. Because, as we discussed before, in these contagion studies they're claiming that the contagion studies are, um, are a success because, for instance, in the covid contagion studies, in the sars-cov-2 contagion study I think, about 40, 45 tested pcr positive. Nobody got sick but 40 tested pcr positive. So they come away going sars-CoV-2 can jump to 40% of people and that's to show that they have no remit to do what they've done. And so we went back to john enders, which was the cell culture isolation study and um, where they the very first step. Now they can't just take uh the fluid of a sick person and spin it in a centrifuge and say, voila, we have your virus. Because apparently there's not enough virus in people to do that. Apparently, even if you had a bucket full of sputum, there wouldn't be enough. Even if you had a swimming pool's worth, there wouldn't be enough. So it's all very strange that they have to do it in this manner, which is called the cell culture.
Speaker 1:So they take a cell line from animals, from humans. There's lots of different types of cell line. With SARS-CoV-2, they use a monkey kidney it's called a Vero cell. It's a slice of cells from an African green monkey and they put this in a dish and they add nutrients to it to grow them out. So those nutrients are called fetal bovine serum. We've got a nice yellow. Can you see that Fantastic?
Speaker 1:So the cell lines are grown out, uh, they are fed with nutrients, fetal bovine serum.
Speaker 1:And so you take a petri dish, you lay a layer of these uh cell lines out and in high concentrations so you can see, 10 is considered a growth medium for these cell lines to grow out to the end of the petri dish and you grow them out and then in all isolation protocols what happens is is that you remove that fetal bovine serum, you remove the nutrient source and then infect with the sputum or mucus or bronchio, alveolar lavage or blood from somebody displaying symptoms.
Speaker 1:Now here is what's considered our negative control at the top. And we the independent laboratory that we worked for uh, that we worked with um had access to a cell counter called the countess um which uh studies live and dead cells. So it's not a subjective view. A lot of virology is to do with the scientist who conducts the study and their opinion. But we wanted to keep it objective and so they have a live imager to show the amount of live and dead cells that we had in that cell culture, and here you can see that it's 95 live and five percent dead now um, you don't want it.
Speaker 1:This is called combat. Uh, can I zoom? By that a little bit zoom in so that just yeah, there it is zoom in a little bit further up there we go, yeah all right, it's great.
Speaker 1:So here you can see, um, these tiny little pockets, um, here about five percent, uh, let the cell line grow out. So that's what's called confluence. When the cells grow out, um, they are nice, happy and healthy and form these kind of geometric patterns that kind of communicate with each other and they need that space to grow. If you let them go over a hundred percent, then they start to starve each other out. They they kind of push and get too, too busy with each other and so if they start to actually kill that, kill themselves. That was one of the um issues that we had. In terms of feedback that we got from stefan lanka's work is that a lot of people said that, uh, he overgrew his um, his initial cultures. So we took stefan lanka's work and we built upon it. We looked to steal man the work that we did, the work that he did, and so we conducted it with HEK293 T cell lines, which is actually a human embryonic kidney cell and it is considered the most robust cell line to work with in clinical science, which is why it's actually used. It's the most widely used cell line to work with in clinical science, which is why it's actually used. It's it's the most widely used cell line. Also, you know the the disparity between the cell lines that they use. They they couldn't get SARS-CoV-2 supposedly to break down the human embryonic kidney cell. They could only get an, a monkey kidney cell line to break down, which again is kind of strange, because if you're saying that it infects a human, then you should be able to infect a human sample in a Petri dish. So we've used the human embryonic kidney cell because it gets closer to reflecting actually what should be going on. Not that I think that in vitro science really is very indicative of what's happening in your body, but it's a closer representation. And so here's what's considered the negative control Nothing has happened after four days of incubation.
Speaker 1:So after these cell lines grow out out, you're meant to infect them and then you put them in an incubator and leave them there until what is called cytopathic effect occurs. So when john enders did his original study, he um, he took these cells, he infected them and then, after you leave them in an incubator for a set period of time, you see death of these cell lines, which is supposedly caused by a pathogen, and so it's called cytopathic effect. Now what we've done in this control experiment is. We have taken these cell lines, we've removed the fetal bovine serum, so so that nutrient medium, fbs down to 2%, which is a standard isolation concentration. It's sometimes 2, it's sometimes 1, but they lower that concentration when they infect and we haven't put any sample in.
Speaker 1:So there is no possibility of a virus being present in this dish. And we know that there's no virus possible because when you buy these cell lines they come from an accredited bank, so it's called the ATCC, an American type culture center, and it's a reference material bank where they provide, guaranteed, all of the ingredients of these things for laboratories to work with. They're guaranteed contaminant free. So you get a, a piece of paper, you get a seal, um, everything is um, uh, you know, um, sealed up and guaranteed that it doesn't contain a virus or it doesn't contain bacteria, or so they pcr test them and then they heat and activate them. So they, they, uh, they heat them up to about 90 degrees c to to burn anything off, um, uh, that is in there, that's biological, before you get them.
Speaker 1:So we know that these cell lines have not got the possibility of a, of a pathogen in them yet, despite this um going, uh, zooming down here. This is what happened when we removed the nutrient medium, that fetal bovine serum, um, um, you can see the death and destruction that's gone on these huge gaping holes, um, that have have appeared in the cell line. You get, uh, um, all of the morphology and and they, they, they claim that cytopathic effect has distinct morphology. So where you can see these on the on the right hand slide, these cells aggregating, here kind of a slightly darker patch is called cincher or clumping, where they kind of move together and clump together, you can see floating and cells lifting and dying and this is all supposedly indicative of a virus being in there, but with no virus present. And also, if we go to the cell viability counter underneath these slides, it shows that 66 percent of them are still living but 34 percent have died. So a third of those cells in just four days have died without the possibility of a pathogen being in there.
Speaker 2:Just one question on that, Jamie, so I can see at the top there is that referring to penicillin and streptomycin.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's right. So we, as part of the isolation they wash it with antibiotics. Here we've used the lowest grade antibiotics penicillin and streptomycin. Let me just zoom back in again. You can see at the top here um one, two and three times. So this is, uh, it's called passaging and you can at every passage, uh, when you kind of restart um the cell lines, you can wash them according to protocol again with these antibiotics.
Speaker 1:Now, these antibiotics are known nephrotoxins, I kidney damaging. Yet most of these cell lines that they use in clinical science, ironically enough, are kidney cells and so they're putting in these antibiotics, sometimes the more stronger versions which are gentamicin and amphotericin, and they're wondering why these kidney cell lines are dying. You know head scratch moment, but really you can see a little bit of effect. You know from the left-hand slide one times, two times and three times penicillin, streptomycin, the amount of death that you can see does increase. I mean visually you can see those cells are getting worse by look and also on the cell viability counter you can see them. Cells are getting worse by look and also on the cell viability counter you can see them roughly creeping up.
Speaker 1:The main variable that we saw was change, was the fetal bovine serum difference was the fetal bovine serum difference. Here we just take it down to 1% on the bottom to see if there was a lot of difference and the difference between kind of dead 34% and dead 36%. So it was just the initial starvation that we saw. We carried this out in 90 cultures, we repeated this 90 times and we received cytopathic effect to the degree of what is accepted as viral presence in every single one of them within the same period of time. So here at the the top, this independent, accredited lab did actually uh note that they saw apoptosis and cincture, dying, lifting and floating of the cells. So these are all the morphologies that are supposedly uh denote uh viruses and even they they claim that these denote specific viruses.
Speaker 2:So specific viruses are meant to do more of the yeah um so here.
Speaker 1:Uh, we have, uh, there's a little bit of amphotericin in there as well and these ones as two percent fetal bovine serum and uh we see the cell viability counter, again about about a third dead in in in four days. And to put this into perspective, day four is is about a a normal length of time uh in an infection um culture. Sometimes some of these protocols can go up to the weeks um two, three weeks that they're leaving them in incubation before they're seeing um any of uh any of these cytopathic effects or or enough cytopathic effect um that they consider. So here was some of the part of the positive control that we had, because we can say, okay, the negative control is ones with the 10% fetal bovine serum, so the growth medium. But what happens when you do put something in? Are we seeing a marked difference between one with a sample in and, say, one without any sample in and reduced mediums? So we did two positive controls here. We did one with just sputum from a, from a healthy individual um, to see if there were any differences that came back um, so here again we have dead 35. We saw cells lifting, floating, uh cells other than hek observed, likely from the sputum. So maybe cheek epithelial cells, skin cells, are just providing a little bit more of a different look to the um, to the sample, which is probably what john enders was getting at in the fact that they just looked different because one contained a sample and the other one didn't.
Speaker 1:In his original cell culture uh paper for measles um, so I didn't, I didn't keep that in anyway. Um, there is another uh um page which I've forgotten to put in, which is we cross-referenced a, a positive control um, where the um, where there was, they claimed that they added a, a viral titer, into um, into the cell line, and we ab showed the, the cells in our cultures against ones that a viral title was added to. And actually they, they were done with exactly the same. We used that protocol to design a lot of the study that we had here and when you um a b, just look at them. The cytopathic effect was actually worse in our study at the same time with the same ingredients. So it shows that it's irrelevant whether you're adding infected material, whether pure virus or involved in this as well. They, they transfected it with um, uh, supposed uh, genetic sequence of a virus as well. Again not showing, not showing the same amount of of death that we received even with no sample whatsoever.
Speaker 1:Um, uh, maybe in the uh show notes afterwards I'll put a link up to the um, uh, to the full study. You can see all of the 90 cultures and the positive and the positive control and and everything. There's a lot more um, there's a lot more detail on that. So this is really where um, we left off, uh, with lanka, in the fact that his study only did cell culture work, and we wanted to go a step further with that and actually take a look at what they claim. Because the um, you know, the virologists have made a claim and they've kind of shot themselves in the foot by saying that there is a physical particle, a physical particle that has distinct feature, called a virus, that you have to use a transmission electron microscope to see this, this particle. Now we took those cultures that contained no sample and after they were incubated, after we had those results, we sent them off to an independent microscopy lab and here you can see the report that was given back to us.
Speaker 1:Now I didn't really know what we were going to get back. To be honest, you know, when we were doing the cell culture work. I was fairly confident that we would be receiving winners because stefan lanka had had had done this work before. So you know it wasn't really mind-blowing to us that uh, you know that, that, that we falsified that, uh, cell culture work. But when it came to transmission electron microscopy we had no idea what we were going to get back.
Speaker 1:Now let me zoom in, because we had to tell the lab that we didn't want to give the game away, that we were trying to look for viruses. We wanted it to be as objective as possible. So if you see at the project, at the top it says project information background the service quotation was to analyze the extracellular vesicles of one sample using transmission electron microscopy goals. The goal is to analyze the extracellular vesicles. So we just told them to have a vague look at extracellular vesicles, just these empty structures within the cell lines. So it was really an objective look by a completely independent and unbiased laboratory. So here you can just see some of them.
Speaker 1:This was the sample that we sent in. You can just about make out the little pellet at the bottom. So that's what they send them in. One cell sample was provided by the customer H-E-K pellet. The other reagents and instruments were provided by this lab. We've had to redact it. The equipment, an ult ultra microtome, so that's the knife that they use to cut very, very thin slivers of um the cells so that you can mount them. Uh, the transmission electron microscope use, the jm 1400 and the digital camera, um.
Speaker 1:So here is one of the images that they gave back and they said this is a extracellular vesicle, which it quite clearly is. It doesn't look like a virus whatsoever, it's, it's empty. Uh, there's no bar chart on that, but I can tell you it's about 2 000 nanometers in size, which is a lot, lot bigger than most what they claim is a virus. It's quite clearly not a virus, which to us was good because it gives us a benchmark to say you know, look, that that is certainly not a virus. And particle that is round, with these proteins, um dotted around inside of them with a, a coating around the outside, and uh, I've, I've cut and pasted this um, the bar, um chart, the size chart from the bottom right hand corner, and if you were to put these end on end, there would be about four or five that will fit into that 500 nanometer bar chart, which says that that particle is about 100 to 120 nanometers in size. It it's round. It has those protein inclusions dotted around on the inside. Now if you look in the middle here it says this is from the National Institute of Health what they consider to be SARS-CoV-2, which is a size between 60 and 140 nanometers. So this particle above is exactly in those thresholds of what that should be, and here at the bottom we have what the cdc considered to be an omicron variant of sars-cov-2. So you can see it's round. It's got these dotted patterns, uh, from from the supposed proteins in the middle. In fact, a lot of these are quite different looking even between themselves. You know this one here will be considered um sars-cov-2 to. This one here will also be as well as this one here. So the rough um cross reference that we can use is is to say that they are round, they're between 16 140 nanometers in size and they have these dotted proteins inside.
Speaker 1:So here we found a particle in our uninfected culture that is exactly the same size, exactly the same shape, with the same protein inclusion. We also found in the bottom picture is an oval-shaped particle. Here we have the proteins pointed out. If you look at the top, here is what the CDC considered to be a measles virus. So if we just describe it, it's oval in shape. It has this coating around the outside. They label this kind of lighter gray matrix in it and then they have a viral membrane and then they have dotted sporadically around them these protein inclusions so that the dots of proteins. And if we were to describe this particle found in our culture, the uninfected culture, it'd be oval, roughly in shape. It has sporadic dots of proteins in it. It has this lighter colored matrix and a coating around the outside.
Speaker 1:Here is the bar chart that I've cut and pasted into it to show that it's roughly about half the size, half the size of that 500 nanometer size. So it's about 250 nanometers top to tail. And if we look, here's what the CDC claimed to be a size of the measles virus, so 120 to 250 nanometers in diameter. So here we have a large version of something that is exactly the same size, exactly the same shape, exactly the same protein inclusions, exactly the same matrix and covering as a measles virus within a culture that cannot possibly contain a virus. Here, if we look at the bottom, is a roughly round. I would describe it as an egg shaped, fried egg shape. So we have a, a nucleated protein, a single dark nucleated patch with a roughly spherical um particle. Um, here you can see at the bottom the bar chart. So you can fit about five top end to end across that bar chart, which would say that it's approximately 100 nanometers in diameter. Here on the top we have the cdc version of what they call hiv.
Speaker 1:So if we just briefly describe it, all of these are considered HIV. So from this particle here to the particles, they're roughly circular shape, but some of them are slightly deformed. But their defining features are this nucleated protein, a single nucleated protein that looks again like a kind of fried egg shape, this distinct viral membrane on the outside and then a slightly lighter colored matrix. So here we have a particle that is exactly the same shape, exactly the same size, exactly the same nucleated proteins that are found in an uninfected culture. And I would just like to point out that the microscopy lab that we gave these to they only gave us back six images. These were six images that we found all three of these supposed viral-like particles in them. We had no control over what to look for or where to look. Yet we found these and what it is, and I I will just say this is that virologists are pointing to dead and dying cell debris.
Speaker 1:When you look at the the bottom of this picture in fact we'll go on, because this this is more kind of peer-reviewed papers to do with just taking HIV, for instance If we look at the top, here again we see that nucleated protein this is in an AIDS-related sample and then on the right is uninfected, and you can see exactly the same type of particles coming again and again when they make these sections, because what they have to do is they have to cut the tissue lining out, then they have to fix them in a kind of formaldehyde type thing, a really noxious substance, and it kills the cell lines. And when these cell lines are dying, when they've been starved in the Petri dish, the cell debris blobs out from the main cell and kind of floats out away from it and that's all that it is. Is that they're pointing at here? We can see virus particles in normal chick embryos. All of these things look exactly like the hiv particle that they're claiming um, uh is uh. The particle that they're claiming is hiv um. Again, in this uh bottom slide, the top two are supposedly infected and the bottom is uh, is uninfected. And so, again here, we see exactly the same type of cells in all three of these, um of these images. So it's just cell debris. Now, um, that that really debunks the visceral, the visceralceral.
Speaker 1:What is a virus?
Speaker 1:Because they've pointed at the particle that is that is a virus. Yet you can find these, these exact particles, in places where they should not be. Thus, we have adequately proved beyond reasonable doubt that the thing that they claim is a virus is is is not a, not a virus. Therefore, to a certain extent, we have shown that those things do not exist, because if there are other uh things that that that are explainable ie, it's just cell debris then those things have no physical being anymore. A virus is just now in the realms of their tests, and their tests are only a few, but one of them is the antigen test, those rapid sticks that we all saw through 2020, that you put your sputum on. Now, a group of clever kids and it's always kids that kind of work this out found that they could um debunk these rapid antigen tests with coca-cola to get off school. So they found that they were putting coke on on these things and, um, I'll just play these, uh, this, this video, if that's all, right and fakes a positive COVID test result.
Speaker 5:Hey, that's at least 10 days. He gets off from school. So is this real? Let's verify it. Our sources are the COVID test company, labcorp, and Dr Mark Lorch, a chemist and testing expert from the University of Hull in England. According to LabCorp, this faking of a COVID test can't be done to a PCR test. Those are the tests that take a couple of days to get a result, but the rapid tests.
Speaker 3:If you drop some cola or orange juice or other actually acidic beverages onto the lateral flow tests, you get what looks like a positive result.
Speaker 5:Dr Lorch says it's not because the beverage has COVID in it.
Speaker 3:The acid basically breaks the test, which makes the result look like a positive result you can spot a fake positive because if you let the device dry out a little bit and then add the fatter solution and get the test back to it, it washes away the fake positive line.
Speaker 5:Which brings us to. How can parents and teachers prevent this from happening?
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's very simple Watch the kids when they're doing it okay.
Speaker 5:So we can verify. Yes, soda or juice can give a false positive on a rapid COVID test, but not a PCR test.
Speaker 4:I always think if kids and other people spent as much time trying to figure something like that out as just doing what you're supposed to be doing, then you're in good shape, All right. So these videos are popping up, I guess primarily on TikTok. Is there any effort being made to pull them down or anything like that?
Speaker 5:TikTok has said that they're making efforts to pull them down, but, as you see, it's like a game of whack-a-mole as one comes down, another one pops up, and then these keep going. One comes down, another one pops up, and then these keep going, and they're trying all sorts of different juices and things.
Speaker 4:Even if we didn't do this story, I'm sure kids who have TikTok in the area would have found it by now, before we even did it. Right. Dipping the swab in cola might give you a false positive for COVID. It might also give you a false positive for diabetes.
Speaker 1:Oh, I'm sorry so there we have the establishment um kind of running for cover. When, um, uh, some kids tested, uh, positive I mean they were smart when they're getting off school uh, testing, testing these things positive with coca-cola, and you had their experts rolling out and saying, oh, it's, it's not, it it's, it's testing positive because the acid is breaking it. So we tried, and we tried with numerous things to see whether it was what they were claiming that it was, whether it was acid that was supposedly breaking these tests. Not that the tests shouldn't be junked if they test positive with something that doesn't contain a virus in any way, but we tested it with vodka. So here we're using not just the SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test, but it's a dual test for influenza A and influenza B, and we're testing it with totally, totally sterilized, totally ph neutral vodka. Vodka, obviously high content alcohol is used to sterilize surfaces and things like hand gel, so it is by proxy um sterilized, so it cannot contain a pathogen. And vodka is ph seven. It's about as neutral as you can get about, as as as um same ph as the standard human body, about seven um. And so, uh, we also tested um acids, um like lemon juice, and we tested white vinegar that both tested negative. That shows that it's not just acid that supposedly breaks the test.
Speaker 1:So here in the video you can see the sample wicking up and the test line on the left hand side. So the T for COVID-19 has tested positive, the influenza A and B. You can see the lines just coming out Now you can see the control line which confirms that it's a positive for SARS-CoV-2. You can see influenza A and influenza B have tested positive and then we'll just wait for a couple of seconds until the control line confirms that positive. So you can just see it coming into frame now.
Speaker 1:So they said that the antigen test tests positive for Coca-Cola. But don't worry, because you cannot do this with a PCR test. Well, that's not true at all. Okay. So yeah, the kids were very clever and they debunked the test by putting Coca-Cola on it. But, as you saw, they wheeled out some of the experts that said that it was acid, said that it was acid that breaks the tests.
Speaker 1:To try these tests and have a look and test them with some things that weren't acidic and also test them with things that were acidic to test their hypothesis that they were saying that it was what was breaking the test. So here we used vodka, which is by proxy sterilized, because high-content alcohol is what you use to sterilize things. That's what hand gel is, um, it's high content alcohol that sterilizes work surfaces in your hands and things, so it can't possibly contain a pathogen. And also, vodka is ph neutral. It's about ph7, about the same as your body body. So, um, uh, it should be a very blank canvas to test these, um, these tests with and uh. We also tested lemon juice and we tested, um, uh, white vinegar. Both of those tested negative. So it's not just acids, um, that break these tests.
Speaker 1:And here we can see on the left-hand side, sars-cov-2, the test line, where it says T has tested positive and the C the control line verifies that that has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. On the left-hand side and on the right-hand side this is a dual test for influenza A and influenza B as well. The vodka has tested positive for influenza B and A and we just need to wait for a couple of seconds for the control line to appear to confirm that the test has tested positive. So they mentioned that the PCR is actually the confirmation for the antigen test, because the pcr cannot be um debunked the same as these. Now we've shown that it's certainly not acid, as they claimed, that is, um causing these positives because their ph neutral vodka tested positive. So we're now on to the PCR section of the control studies that we're doing, where we are pulling apart the PCR tests and conducting similar controls, taking things that cannot possibly contain a virus and testing them the same with whole genome sequencing. Um, really, they have already um done this. When you wait, when you know where to look. So, uh, in science, uh, the um public, the um biological publication, the, the most famous biological publication. It says here um, this was during late 2020 that they admitted um. Here it says the united states badly bungled coronavirus testing. And I'll read it out for you.
Speaker 1:The key problem with the kits is what's known as a negative control, says kelly roblowski, director of Diseases at the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Cdc's test uses the polymerase chain reaction assay to find tiny amounts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome in, say, a nose swab. To make sure a test is working properly, kits also include DNA unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. The assay should not react to this negative control, but the CDC reagents did at many, but not all, state labs. The labs where the negative control failed were not allowed to use the test. They have to continue to send their samples to Atlanta.
Speaker 1:Now, this is not strictly true in the fact that they say that, to make sure a test is working properly, kits also include DNA unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. What they're talking about a negative control, doesn't contain any other DNA. It contains water, nuclease-free water. So it contains all of the reagents of a PCR test. So you have the specific primers which are meant to pick up the thing that you're looking for, all of the other reagents, and then the negative control uses just water instead of a sample. Yet here, when they sent them out, the majority of the labs that they sent these kits out to were testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, just with water in them. So it's actually even worse than an antigen test in the fact that they didn't even have to put Coca-Cola in there. They just tested water and they tested positive.
Speaker 1:So here at the bottom, here is the other way around, which is the positive control. So that was the negative control that we talked about there, which showed that the test is essentially fraudulent. But it's terms. If you take a pcr test for oranges, for instance, and you want to test how well the test is working for testing oranges. You would put an orange in there to make sure that it tested positive 100 times out of 100. That is a positive control and it would give you the most strong positive that the test was calibrated to give.
Speaker 1:And so they make these positive controls here they have used a lot of laboratories have actually tried different of these positive controls with different taxonomies of completely different particles. So here at the top Biotechnics Forum mixed up tubes and ran a bacterial 16S control with viral primers. So they were using the positive control for a bacteria with viral primers and saw a CT36 on qPCR which means that it tested positive on a PCR test with completely different primers as is supposed to be used. Again accidentally used the plasmodium oligo, which is the positive control with our labs standard human actin primers. So, uh, plasmodium is a kind of protezer, I think. And um, uh, that was against human and it tested positive. Here it's got a weird 300 bp band. That's a base pair.
Speaker 1:So how many nucleotide sequences long the genetic sequences on gel, which is electrophoresis, way off from actin's 150 bp. So they it's it's kind of a um, a long chain of verifying all of these junk tests from antigens. When you put coca-cola on them. You test them with a pcr or you verify them with a pcr. When the pcr tests positive with water, you're meant to verify them with gel electrophoresis. And gel electrophoresis is kind of the end of the line. It's it's where all of these things are verified and it you can see it in the chamber of a gel electrophoresis.
Speaker 1:You know it's not a particularly sophisticated piece of equipment. It's. It's literally a, a plastic container that you fill with a jelly, um, like an agar the closest would be an agar agar jelly, you know, just just a standard kind of jelly that you would get at a kid's party. But, um, they, they use agarose and polyacromide, which is just slightly different types of jellies, and they literally hook it up with battery electrodes. And when they put a sample on and when some of the particles that are in this sample go towards the anode, the, the positive pole, uh, they, they say that that verifies, um, uh, what's in the sample?
Speaker 1:Um, now I've just got chat gpt to confirm that I said dna is negatively charged, which is why it moves towards the anode in gel electrophoresis. Correct, dna is negatively charged due to its phosphate backbone, which causes it to move towards the positively charged anode during gel electrophoresis. And I said but principally it only works based on charge. Yes, you're right in the sense that charge is the fundamental driving force behind gel electrophoresis. Without charge, the technique wouldn't work at all.
Speaker 1:So here it is, confirming that it's not directly measuring anything other than charge. It's not directly measuring what it claims to measure, which is genetics. It is just measuring the charge within a sample. And then you have to assume that that charge means something that they claim that it means, I they. They come up with lots of stories that they claim that because it tested positive with water, but that water didn't um have the same um, didn't move the same distance as it did on the gel towards the anode, that that means that, uh, it's measuring what it claims to measure, which is just not correct. So we're at this part of the um, we're at this part of the uh um, of the project that we're at. So we're conducting pcr control studies with, we're conducting um whole genome sequencing. We've sent sent off uh all of these things to the laboratories and we're putting all of that data together to really pull apart the PCR test, which is the kind of linchpin behind it all.
Speaker 2:If I was to summarize everything that you've said as briefly as I possibly can. When you look at how virologists confirm presence of a virus, first of all, they've never done it in the human body. They say that there's not enough from a sample to be able to identify it physically. So what they do is they take a kidney cell or kidney cells, put it into a petri dish, add in nutrients to feed it, but they also add in antibiotics that we know would break down kidney tissue, right? Eventually the culture starts to starve anyway, right, because it's only got a finite number of nutrients. And then, when the cells start to break down the pieces that break off, they say well, there you are, there's a virus right, that's it and that's it, it's, yeah it, it is that.
Speaker 1:Uh, it's that dumb really you know, um, for for me that that the, the whole thing was, um was interesting with the microscopy. You know I to, I didn't know what we were going to get back with that. You know when, um, when we did the cell culture, it's, it's a witch's brew, right, you know it's, it's, it's, it's real quackery. But, uh, when you can zoom in and just find these particles that look identical to the, the particles that they claim are viruses, that to me refutes virology, because it's the physical thing that they're pointing at. And if they point at something very distinct, and you know for what they are, between you can see the difference between the measles and the hiv and the sars-coV-2, they look different, right, they look enough to be distinct to a layman to say, okay, they are definitely different things. When you can find those different things in places where they should not be, it's quite clear that these things that they are claiming don't exist. You know there's an epistemological problem with saying something doesn't exist. You know you can't prove a negative and all things like that. But I think that, on weight of evidence, that when you can go in and first try find these things you know, because it wasn't, as if we tried it 10 times and failed. This was the very first time in six slides and we went oh, oh, there's one, and there's one, oh, and there's one. You know if we and I'm actually working with um, another project who is replicating our work to confirm our work and going further into you know, because that's how science should work. Right, this is that.
Speaker 1:Uh, I've, I've put out on on twitter, you know, to people that are for or against the work you know, to show us that we're wrong as well, if, if you're against the work that we've done to prove us wrong. You know that's what science is to have an open debate about. As of yet, nobody has has. No, you know, I've had seasoned virologists say I don't agree with your work, but they won't do the experiments to show that we're wrong, which is very telling. I think I've even got to the point where I've said, look, I will, because I would like some, you know, some more experiments to be done, more experiments to be done. I said I will pay you to do the experiments and you do them objectively, so you can, you can carry them out, so that you know that everything has been done above the board. And they, they refused, you know, as part of this project as well, we, um, we took video. We took video of the experiments being carried out. So the cell culture work um, on my sub stack has all of the experiments being carried out. So the cell culture work on my substack has all of the video of every single method and it walks you through and we have subtitles underneath of the laboratory technicians saying what they're doing.
Speaker 1:So you know, as a layman, you can kind of come into this project and actually kind of see behind closed doors what virologists are doing.
Speaker 1:You know, that's what I wanted to do with the experiment that I'm running is open it up to people to actually show them what is occurring, rather than you know how big pharma works at the moment or basically all modern science. This is all behind closed doors that the average person on the street just has to accept what the man in the white coat tells them or dictates to them as being truth, and I think that that is not the way that science should work. I think that it should be an open, open platform, and so the project that I'm running is completely open source. You can take any of the results and do with it what you will and also engage with it. You know it's an, it's an open project that has open doors, that says if you want to come in and ask questions or maybe suggest things to do, please do. You know we're we're here and we're we're all interested. You know we're all interested to find out the result yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:So I remember when I was speaking with with daniel, you know he he said, technically, when people talk about viruses, the original meaning of a virus was was a toxin. So he said in some instances when people are talking about viruses, they're not technically lying, but they they just don't really know what it is. Do you feel that virus is a toxin, or is it just the breakdown of the kidney cells?
Speaker 1:how do you mean in in when you're actually looking at, when you're looking at under a transmission electron microscope, it's a yeah, it's cell cellular debris. So, um, when, when you see the larger pictures that we got back, when it kind of zooms out and again all of this uh, information is on, um, my substack, uh, we give you the, the, the whole images, uh, because we've had to zoom in to kind of pick out some of the viral-like particles, when you see the cell in its kind of a bit more zoomed out, obviously still in transmission electron microscopy, you get the idea that you see the very distinct outline of a cell and then almost like blobs off of it. Okay, the way that I kind of describe it would be like a lava lamp. You know, you get like the kind of hydrophilic oils in water and so when you watch a lava lamp it kind of like buds off and then it forms into smaller things as the wax interacts with the thing that it's um, it's immiscable in. Uh, well, you kind of see the same kind of patterns with a cell line, because obviously it has, you know, lipids around the outside when it breaks down and it dies and it blobs out into into the medium, that the um, that the slide is in, to take it, it becomes very obvious that it's just kind of. It's almost like a Rorschach pattern, you know, where you kind of an inkblot thing, where it's kind of what you see in the inkblot and it's very much like that, or cloud analysis.
Speaker 1:You know, you look at the clouds and you say, oh, I think I can see an elephant in the clouds. It's the same type of thing, that it's just these random patterns that occur when they blob out away from the cell. That is cellular debris. Some of these vesicles are filled, some of them are not. When they're not filled, they call them an extracellular vesicle. When these little blobs have stuff in from the cell line, they call them all sorts of things. You know, I don't think it's the same with exosomes as well, like I don't think that exosomes are a thing either. They're just. You know, they claim that they're full of genetics and they are doing essentially what a virus does, which is like transport material. I don't think that those things are a thing either. I think that it's all just cellular debris underneath the microscope yeah, you know it's interesting.
Speaker 2:In the last two weeks, you know, I've had someone say to me, oh, I've had COVID again, and you just kind of think, oh really. And then someone else says, oh yeah, I'm not very well, I obviously caught it when I went to wherever. And you just think, well, you're just living in a different universe, you know, and I just feel really sorry for these people because obviously they've been tripped right. Yes.
Speaker 2:And, as we all have been at some point, we've all been in that place, right I mean in 2020, I didn't know that you couldn't pass on a disease via germs, and even I would have held my hand up and said I'm definitely in the terrain theory camp, right. But looking back, I didn't really understand terrain theory, because I thought you know if you're healthy when you, when you take on board a pathogen, if you've got a strong immune system, you deal with it. That's your terrain, right, and I think there's a lot of people that still think that that is the case, but actually it's a completely different thing no, it's.
Speaker 1:You know that there is an easy way to kind of visualize, you know, your health and it's not too, you know, to take you from those, uh, you know, patterns of becoming diseased and, uh, you know, constantly being of of ill health is is, you know, it's not too different from the mainstream model, it's just there are no pathogens. If you eat mac eds every day, yeah, all of the preservatives and all the chemicals and all of the shit that's in it builds up inside your body and it's going to need to come out at some point. And it comes out by your body heating up, uh, you know, with a fever to um, emulsify the, the, the toxins, um, out of your bloodstream into your mucosal lining and, and, um, you have a snotty, runny nose and a cough and, um, you know, maybe some fluid on the chest, you know, and you sweat. You use the largest organ of your body to sweat those toxins out and you have a running fever for a little bit and um, and once you you see that as a detox pathway rather than symptoms that are there to stop, you can start to heal. But really, you know, the notion of an immune system and the notion of pathogens is just the thing that is kind of you know, it takes away the responsibility. Really, you know, once you learn that there is no immune system, there is no, there are no, there are no contagion, it's just the ingestion of these chemical toxins in our environment, a lot of them.
Speaker 1:Sometimes we don't even know right. You can't account for the farmer spraying crops on the field next door or what they're spraying into the air, or um, you know what goes into your water supply or so on and so forth. It's um, uh, you know you can't have complete control but you can seek to limit it. And you know you don't have to deviate too far away from the, from the mainstream model of. You know, um, not the drinking and smoking on the head. And you know, not the drinking and smoking on the head. And you know, try and eat clean. You know, over long periods of time you will see the results. It's as simple as that. Watch out for you know you don't need vaccines because there are no viruses. That one's pretty easy, you know, and everything that goes with that. So you know, and everything that goes with that. So you know, health is simple. It just takes a bit of time to understand the causality and then redress.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, I mean, I'm at that point where I think that disease is caused by three main things malnourishment, toxicity and potentially negative thoughts, or you might call them unresolved emotional trauma yes, totally.
Speaker 1:I mean, yeah, the, the head is a big one, right? Um, you know, in some of these studies, um, there's an amazing one actually, in one of these contagion studies where the person finds out, um, what they're trying to do. In most cases they try and shield them to the ideals of the study, to make it unbiased, or to try and make it unbiased. And one person finds out what they're trying to do because they overhear a nurse saying that that's what they're trying to do.
Speaker 1:And he developed serious pneumonia symptoms overnight and, um, the nurses came, came in in the morning, he, he had like a 39 degree fever, you know, started to expel quite a lot of mucus and uh, and, and they said, um, you're the only one, you're the only one doing this, by the way, like everybody else has been absolutely fine, because you know it hasn't actually, it hasn't actually worked, like that's what we were trying to do, but you know it hasn't worked and his symptoms cleared up with within 10 hours. So it was totally kind of imagined. And obviously there's there's huge investigations into the nocebo effect and the placebo effect, which is, all you know, very firmly rooted in, um, in peer-reviewed and published literature that, um, your, your thoughts and your emotions and your mood and your state um affect your overall health and could be thought of and could be considered a driver yeah, absolutely well, this has been fantastic talking to you today, jamie.
Speaker 2:I know we've had a few technical issues thank you, lee.
Speaker 1:No, it's been great I could.
Speaker 2:I could potentially speak to you for another few hours, but I am already overrunning for my next guest. Before we wrap up, can you share with the audience you know where people can find your work online and potentially even support your work as well?
Speaker 1:yeah, um, all of the results, uh, from the study um that I'm doing is on is on substack, substack, forward slash control studies. Um, I'm on twitter. I'm constantly getting chucked off, uh, which is why it's jamie a, a underscore again. Uh, I, I, you can reach me on either of those, um, either of those platforms and, um, yeah, it's all free. And if, if you want to donate to to the project, you want to get stuck into the project, um, make suggestions or or anything, or just um, uh, you know, hypothesize, um, all of those avenues are great and, all you know, we're all moving in the same direction yeah, fantastic again.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much for your time today. I've I've really loved talking about this kind of stuff. You know I loved having daniel right s on and mark bailey. This is the kind of stuff I could probably talk about all day, but, um, now I really appreciate your time and you know, if you ever want to come back on, you're always welcome to come back on. If you, you know, get more studies coming out, more things to share, I'd love to have you back on oh great, thank you very much, lee.
Speaker 1:I've had a really great time and, yeah, we've obviously got quite a lot more of the results to come from the pcr and the genetics work, so I'll keep you up to speed and maybe do um, do one in a little bit of time and um, we can celebrate fantastic, awesome cheers so that wraps up today's episode with Jamie Andrews.
Speaker 2:Be sure to join me next time for the next episode of the Radical Health Rebel Podcast. Thanks for tuning in. Remember to give the show a rating and a review, and I'll see you next time.
