One would also have to take into account that "patient samples" were exposed to unknown preconditions. These could be Treatment with antiviral drugs and/or antibiotics due to "illness" even before the smear was taken (by a doctor), traces of unknown substances in body fluid that have already influenced the smear before and changed it in favour of the "CPE", changed and fluctuating conditions during storage and transport of the smear compared to the industrially produced cell culture, which was stored under constant, non-fluctuating, artificial conditions. In my opinion, even the age of the smear and the "incubation period" in the patient should be taken into account.
To my knowledge, the history of the patient's swab is not mentioned in any study on the "detection of viral particles" and could influence the result in favour of the virologists' expectations. Despite this "competitive advantage" in the evidence of alleged viral presence, the result with the patient sample cannot be distinguished from the result in the control experiment, except for the slightly different speed of decay, which can be explained by the arguments mentioned above.
Hello FTS, you bring up an interesting point for CPE, assuming CPE had meaning (which it doesn't even without controls). To find a virus though, you need to isolate a particle which CPE doesn't do, nor EM of the CPE, patient fluid or not.
To find a particle characterized as a virus we'd need to find a purified object confirmed on EM around the 100nm size on ultracentrifuge density gradient, then characterize this from the centrifuge pellet. Since there is no virus, CPE could at best just tell you something in patient fluid was toxic to cells which has little research or clinical meaning assuming the control group did not cause CPE, and even basically zero meaning if the control group did cause CPE.
You're right, the CPE is meaningless. Virologists have to come up with another "convincing proof", and that is now the detachment of objects in general and the switch to pure in silico techniques, because the problem cannot be solved otherwise due to the lack of viruses. In the beginning there is the question of physical existence. You can't get around this if you are planning something as fundamental as the disenfranchisement of humanity.
Addendum: as far as I know, EM photography never mentions several sectional layers on the "viral sample". It can therefore not be ruled out that sectional layers are specifically selected to meet the expectations of the virologists' presentation. Several layers of the same section would always have to be shown in order to be able to check whether "virus-shaped" spherical objects are actually present, or whether the section has accidentally caught a layer that only gives the impression of a spherical shape.
Thanks Matthew for a huge amount of work and great writeup.
I am a mechanical engineer and am coming right out to say I do not know nearly enough to critique here. Likewise, from comments here it also appears there is a huge variation in expertise represented ranging from true experts in virology to dillitants. The fact that such a unique subject is being debated while not knowing the background of commenters makes it hard to take anyone with no grain of salt.
Regardless, I have used a lot of microscopes, both light and SEM's(not TEM's), and understand the level of time and work required to make this study which makes me appreciate it even more. I have no clue as to sample prep here but from the context realize it is way more than I ever had to do.
I understand, hopefully correctly, that the marker of CP effects is one presently used by virologists to "tell" if some substance is a virus or likely to be. Apparently, your study here calls that theory / protocol into question since by varying a chemical input you can create the same results. I hope I got that right.
What amazes me, a rookie "virus may not exist-er" trying to feel for the real truth in this debate, is that, I still am seeing IMAGES displayed with notes pointing out molecular parts of the structure yet I did NOT see or understand that any "microprobe" analysis (of some??!# sort) PROVES such structure from that sample. [vaguely recalling micro-probe XRF or inorganic materials to prove existence of certain elements in a sample!] I see IMAGES of HIV and measles viruses but no explanation for how one can "consider" that image and claim with any accuracy(!) if is ONE virus or another.
Please enlighten this unwashed person.
THIS, to me, is the thing I keep returning to that proves arrows are simply being pointed at little gray blobs with the claim and no PROOF that blob is, assuredly 100%, THIS virus and not this other one over here. If my ignorance shows, well so be it, but I just do not get "it".
Very nice job, sir! It would be great for many labs to do these simple control experiments, and subsequently exhibit the fraud of ‘virology’ soyence. Perhaps many scientists will have eyes to see that what is done in labs and called science is the opposite. Much of this research has been done or observed before this ground breaking study by Jamie and friends. Dr. Lanka’s studies and many other observations/experiments are censored and hidden from the general populace. Fear and soyence pushed for obvious reasons.
It has me laughing heartily and over a long period of time that 3 ‘viruses’ were found in clean cultures when only 9 images overall were even taken.😂😆🤣
Sorry, I'm trying, but I can't find certain parts of the measles virus on your control pictures. Where are F (fusion) protein, HA (haemagglutinin), nucleocapsid, phosphoprotein, etc.?
Well, of course one cannot find parts of ‘Measles “virus”’, they do not exist except as fabrication. Dead cell debris/flocculents/who knows what else…are not ‘viruses’ as claimed by the indoctrinated soyentists. “F (fusion) protein, HA (haemagglutinin), nucleocapsid, phosphoprotein, etc.” are all BS to deceive you. Furthermore, some of those fake things are in the image. 9 images of a cell culture (incubated w 2% FBS, starved) were taken, and 3 ‘viruses’ were ‘found’. 😂😆🤣 This can easily be repeated by any lab. 🙌😂 Focusing on the trivial is what we are all taught, so we observe it every day. But I’m not one to gossip so…
Good work!
One would also have to take into account that "patient samples" were exposed to unknown preconditions. These could be Treatment with antiviral drugs and/or antibiotics due to "illness" even before the smear was taken (by a doctor), traces of unknown substances in body fluid that have already influenced the smear before and changed it in favour of the "CPE", changed and fluctuating conditions during storage and transport of the smear compared to the industrially produced cell culture, which was stored under constant, non-fluctuating, artificial conditions. In my opinion, even the age of the smear and the "incubation period" in the patient should be taken into account.
To my knowledge, the history of the patient's swab is not mentioned in any study on the "detection of viral particles" and could influence the result in favour of the virologists' expectations. Despite this "competitive advantage" in the evidence of alleged viral presence, the result with the patient sample cannot be distinguished from the result in the control experiment, except for the slightly different speed of decay, which can be explained by the arguments mentioned above.
And this brings virology back to the coin toss.
Hello FTS, you bring up an interesting point for CPE, assuming CPE had meaning (which it doesn't even without controls). To find a virus though, you need to isolate a particle which CPE doesn't do, nor EM of the CPE, patient fluid or not.
To find a particle characterized as a virus we'd need to find a purified object confirmed on EM around the 100nm size on ultracentrifuge density gradient, then characterize this from the centrifuge pellet. Since there is no virus, CPE could at best just tell you something in patient fluid was toxic to cells which has little research or clinical meaning assuming the control group did not cause CPE, and even basically zero meaning if the control group did cause CPE.
I hope this makes sense.
You're right, the CPE is meaningless. Virologists have to come up with another "convincing proof", and that is now the detachment of objects in general and the switch to pure in silico techniques, because the problem cannot be solved otherwise due to the lack of viruses. In the beginning there is the question of physical existence. You can't get around this if you are planning something as fundamental as the disenfranchisement of humanity.
Addendum: as far as I know, EM photography never mentions several sectional layers on the "viral sample". It can therefore not be ruled out that sectional layers are specifically selected to meet the expectations of the virologists' presentation. Several layers of the same section would always have to be shown in order to be able to check whether "virus-shaped" spherical objects are actually present, or whether the section has accidentally caught a layer that only gives the impression of a spherical shape.
Great writeup Matthew!
This is all we need, excellent and elegant! Thank you
Nice control study.
Thanks Matthew for a huge amount of work and great writeup.
I am a mechanical engineer and am coming right out to say I do not know nearly enough to critique here. Likewise, from comments here it also appears there is a huge variation in expertise represented ranging from true experts in virology to dillitants. The fact that such a unique subject is being debated while not knowing the background of commenters makes it hard to take anyone with no grain of salt.
Regardless, I have used a lot of microscopes, both light and SEM's(not TEM's), and understand the level of time and work required to make this study which makes me appreciate it even more. I have no clue as to sample prep here but from the context realize it is way more than I ever had to do.
I understand, hopefully correctly, that the marker of CP effects is one presently used by virologists to "tell" if some substance is a virus or likely to be. Apparently, your study here calls that theory / protocol into question since by varying a chemical input you can create the same results. I hope I got that right.
What amazes me, a rookie "virus may not exist-er" trying to feel for the real truth in this debate, is that, I still am seeing IMAGES displayed with notes pointing out molecular parts of the structure yet I did NOT see or understand that any "microprobe" analysis (of some??!# sort) PROVES such structure from that sample. [vaguely recalling micro-probe XRF or inorganic materials to prove existence of certain elements in a sample!] I see IMAGES of HIV and measles viruses but no explanation for how one can "consider" that image and claim with any accuracy(!) if is ONE virus or another.
Please enlighten this unwashed person.
THIS, to me, is the thing I keep returning to that proves arrows are simply being pointed at little gray blobs with the claim and no PROOF that blob is, assuredly 100%, THIS virus and not this other one over here. If my ignorance shows, well so be it, but I just do not get "it".
Very nice job, sir! It would be great for many labs to do these simple control experiments, and subsequently exhibit the fraud of ‘virology’ soyence. Perhaps many scientists will have eyes to see that what is done in labs and called science is the opposite. Much of this research has been done or observed before this ground breaking study by Jamie and friends. Dr. Lanka’s studies and many other observations/experiments are censored and hidden from the general populace. Fear and soyence pushed for obvious reasons.
It has me laughing heartily and over a long period of time that 3 ‘viruses’ were found in clean cultures when only 9 images overall were even taken.😂😆🤣
Thank you!🙏
Sorry, I'm trying, but I can't find certain parts of the measles virus on your control pictures. Where are F (fusion) protein, HA (haemagglutinin), nucleocapsid, phosphoprotein, etc.?
Well, of course one cannot find parts of ‘Measles “virus”’, they do not exist except as fabrication. Dead cell debris/flocculents/who knows what else…are not ‘viruses’ as claimed by the indoctrinated soyentists. “F (fusion) protein, HA (haemagglutinin), nucleocapsid, phosphoprotein, etc.” are all BS to deceive you. Furthermore, some of those fake things are in the image. 9 images of a cell culture (incubated w 2% FBS, starved) were taken, and 3 ‘viruses’ were ‘found’. 😂😆🤣 This can easily be repeated by any lab. 🙌😂 Focusing on the trivial is what we are all taught, so we observe it every day. But I’m not one to gossip so…
😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😆🤣😂😂😂