Just to clarify, the challenge put forward in the Settling the Virus Debate Statement is quite different from what Jamie is doing. In the challenge, we proposed that 5 labs, all blinded to each other, would each be provided 5 clinical samples from 4 groups of patients (20 samples in total per lab, all coming from the same 20 patients). They would be asked to see if they could fake-isolate an (imaginary) virus (using their cell culture process where they absurdly interpret CPE as evidence of a virus), and provide images showing CPE (if present) and EM images showing "the virus" (if they think there is one).
Then the results from the 5 labs would be compared to each other (to check for their consistency with each other) and to the categories of the patients (to see if the labs agree with the diagnoses or lack thereof that the patients had received). If they miraculously passed this challenge, they were encouraged to then to proper scientific experiments with a proper IV, etc.
The discussion between Andy and Kirsch wasn't about Jamie's experiments.
One other note: to properly test a virus hypothesis, if a virologist is adding fluid from a patient that they think contains a virus to a culture, then the control culture would also need to contain that same fluid minus the particles suspected of being a virus (which would require the particles to be purified). So this is also a little different from what Jamie is doing. He isn't testing a virus hypothesis, rather he is showing that you don't need to add anything at all from a patient in order to get CPE.
That is not correct re Jamie's control experiments. Jamie and his team's control experiments don't just aim to point out the flaws in the cell culture method.
As explained on many platforms (including Mike Stone's SS linked in Betsy's article), the cell culture and TEM experiments were merely the first round of control experiments and they now need to crowd source funds in order carry out further control experiments relating to the PCR tests, antibodies, proteomics and full genome sequencing.
Hence he has said numerous times, "For the past 8 months, a team of us... have been conducting the most comprehensive control studies of the virological methodology ever done." Note, not simply the cell culture method - or the inducement of CPE as you suggest. Instead, they are control testing every single way virologists claim to detect "viruses" - novel or otherwise.
As such, Jamie and his team are most definitely testing the virus hypothesis. If every process in the methodology can be shown to be flawed there is simply no leg left for virologists and their "viruses" to stand on.
I'm not sure what your issue is Mia, because I didn't write that Jamie's experiments only aim to point out the flaws in the cell culture method. I pointed out the fact that his experiments differ from the challenge in the STVDS, and I pointed out (based on Jamie's own descriptions) that his culture experiments are not testing a virus hypothesis.
I also explained what a proper control would look like if testing a virus hypothesis, because Betsy had indicated that:
"it is necessary to conduct control experiments. These are experiments in which the same procedure is followed with all of the same substances and ingredients in the same amounts and conditions, but no fluid supposedly containing a virus is added."
If I wrote something "not correct" please quote me.
Also can you please show me (with an actual quote) where Jamie has indicated that he will test a virus hypothesis? Because I watched/listened to both of his presentations (and read "DPL's" write up and never heard or read that.
In his audio presentation with "DPL" Jamie indicated that he hopes to purchase "virus isolates" to see if adding them to a culture "drastically changes" the CPE. Adding a fake-isolate to a culture is not a valid way to test a "virus" hypothesis and you know it.
With all due respect Mia, you still don't seem to understand the difference between testing a virus hypothesis in a valid manner and showing that the assumptions, claims and evidence of virologists are idiotic - even though I've gone over this with you repeatedly.
My issue was with how you described Jamie and his team's control experiments and what they had set out to do. You said, " He isn't testing a virus hypothesis, rather he is showing that you don't need to add anything at all from a patient in order to get CPE. "
First, Jamie and his team are doing far more than simply demonstrating no patient sample is needed to induce CPE - as already explained in my initial reply.
Second, your statement is also inaccurate because as Jamie has explained (and as set out in Dpl's write up), in addition to not adding patient samples to cultures and to," act as a kind of "Positive Control" [they] added sputum from a healthy human as a sample into quite a few of [their] cultures to see if that affected the amount of CPE that took place." As such, more than one type of control experiment was run on the cell culture method in attempt to further demonstrate the lack of control or flaws inherent in the experiment.
Third, it is clear that Jamie and his team are attempting to demonstrate by means of various control experiments that every experiment /method relied upon by virologists to prove the presence of "viruses" is flawed and demonstrates no such thing.
To say that the only aim of the control experiments is to show that the methods of virologists are idiotic and not to also ultimately show that "viruses" could never have been demonstrated to exist, is illogical.
To then also suggest that this can not be the team's ultimate aim because Jamie hasn't said so is also nonsensical. This is clearly an instance where it goes without saying.
Especially, considering Jamie has in fact said, "Taking inspiration from the control experiments conducted by Dr. Stefan Lanka, we looked not only to replicate his findings but to expand on them, scrutinizing every single point of reference virologists quote as evidence that “viruses” exist." (Dpl's write up).
I am not concerned here with how you think things should be done or what you think qualifies as a control experiment. The point I am making is what you have said Jamie and his team are doing and why, is patently wrong.
Mia, I'm not going to waste time going in circles with you. You have not pointed out anything that I wrote that is "not correct" or shown where Jamie has indicated that he will perform a valid experiment to test a virus hypothesis. If you can't provide quotes to show these things, please drop this.
Fyi, sputum from a healthy human is not my idea of a positive control. Not sure what logic you're relying on there. Why would you expect it to cause CPE (or any other effect that is interpreted as evidence of a virus)?
Sputum from a healthy human is also not a valid IV for testing a virus hypothesis - purified particles would be necessary. If one doesn't get CPE when adding sputum from a healthy human, then one might decide there is no point in bothering to carry on to experiments with purified particles. But there is no way to obtain evidence that there is a virus, simply by using sputum.
(Btw, you might want to point out to "DPL" that he indicated back on June 13th that when adding the sputum the CPE remained the same or lowered, but in the screenshots he shared the CPE is higher when the sputum was added.)
Newsflash: showing that the assumptions, claims and evidence of virologists are idiotic (which btw doesn't require anyone to carry out new experiments) automatically shows that "viruses" have not been demonstrated to exist. That is the whole point of what no-virus people have been doing all this time, Mia.
You are projecting things onto me that I've not written.
Regarding Dr. Lanka's experiments, based on what I've heard from Jamie he will not be replicating them, rather he will be doing his experiments differently in order to address criticisms that have been levelled against Dr. Lanka's experiments.
I didn't invent the scientific method or logic, Mia. This isn't about what I "think".
Be sure to include quotes when responding, otherwise this is a waste of time.
Thanks for asking! I got a BA in English in 1973 and worked in writing jobs, mostly journalism or related, which is what I really wanted to do anyway. I also worked at a knitting store and started and ran a small non-profit. After that I went back to higher ed, 30 years after my BA, and got a Master of Liberal Studies, and during those years I had a chance to teach, and I loved it! To pursue teaching at the college level, I got my PhD in English and by then I was in my early 60s. I also realized by the time I finished in 2015 that I'd have to work as an adjunct, probably teaching college writing rather than literature, and getting very low pay and having no job security, so I started doing academic editing. That's been great, except I'm being replaced by robots now, as many grad students and professionals who write academic papers are using AI. So glad I am not a writing teacher now, with AI so easily available to students to do their writing for them! But starting this column has got me back to my first love, which is writing.
Years and studying natural approaches for 10 years. It
Was very hard for me to wrap my head around the issue of contagion. I believe only my diverse life experience has finally enlightened me. I was a hospice nurse for some time and I began to notice photons leaving the body a few Minutes after death. I am very intuitive and I felt it was light leaving the cells as they died. So I’ve had dreams and feel contagion is being in the close area of someone who is sick and when their cells die they leave via photons and an electromagnetic biological being can receive the photon under certain circumstances. The photons can share some of the same symptoms that the person whose cells died and also their body will begin to remove them from their body. This is pretty far out for most people but when you know you know.
I’m not saying this always happens but it sometimes does and the body doesn’t have to die only some cells for the photons to pass from one body to another. They would need to be in close proximity of the photons.
I've noticed the 'no virus' debate has a tendency to get caught up in the eternal silly string that is virology and in doing so lose sight of the big picture. The Kaufman/ Kirsch 'debate' was an example of this.
I am more inclined to give them the existence of the virus, but insist that 'viruses' get redefined based on observations in the real world (the world of snot and sniffles), rather than let 'viruses' seek sanctuary in the digital realm where anything can be said to 'exist' because the constraints of nature do not apply.
I have a new working definition of 'viruses' (see link) in case anyone is interested (it's not too far removed from the definition of unicorns).
I feel we have a better chance redefining 'viruses' as a kind of cultural/ mythological/ superstitious/ digital entity than we do of claiming they 'don't exist'. In essence, it's the same thing but by redefining 'viruses' (rather than denying them) we take away the conflict and division.
I don't 'deny' viruses... I simply recognise them as powerful figurative or cultural entities (like unicorns).
The difference is that no one tries to inject the entire population of the world with a potentially dangerous bioweapon based on the belief that cave trolls and unicorns stomp around in the woods at night. Belief in viruses on the other hand...
Just to clarify, the challenge put forward in the Settling the Virus Debate Statement is quite different from what Jamie is doing. In the challenge, we proposed that 5 labs, all blinded to each other, would each be provided 5 clinical samples from 4 groups of patients (20 samples in total per lab, all coming from the same 20 patients). They would be asked to see if they could fake-isolate an (imaginary) virus (using their cell culture process where they absurdly interpret CPE as evidence of a virus), and provide images showing CPE (if present) and EM images showing "the virus" (if they think there is one).
Then the results from the 5 labs would be compared to each other (to check for their consistency with each other) and to the categories of the patients (to see if the labs agree with the diagnoses or lack thereof that the patients had received). If they miraculously passed this challenge, they were encouraged to then to proper scientific experiments with a proper IV, etc.
The discussion between Andy and Kirsch wasn't about Jamie's experiments.
One other note: to properly test a virus hypothesis, if a virologist is adding fluid from a patient that they think contains a virus to a culture, then the control culture would also need to contain that same fluid minus the particles suspected of being a virus (which would require the particles to be purified). So this is also a little different from what Jamie is doing. He isn't testing a virus hypothesis, rather he is showing that you don't need to add anything at all from a patient in order to get CPE.
Thanks for explaining that, Christine. It is so helpful to have many minds working on finding the truth, or at least, finding what isn't the truth.
That is not correct re Jamie's control experiments. Jamie and his team's control experiments don't just aim to point out the flaws in the cell culture method.
As explained on many platforms (including Mike Stone's SS linked in Betsy's article), the cell culture and TEM experiments were merely the first round of control experiments and they now need to crowd source funds in order carry out further control experiments relating to the PCR tests, antibodies, proteomics and full genome sequencing.
Hence he has said numerous times, "For the past 8 months, a team of us... have been conducting the most comprehensive control studies of the virological methodology ever done." Note, not simply the cell culture method - or the inducement of CPE as you suggest. Instead, they are control testing every single way virologists claim to detect "viruses" - novel or otherwise.
As such, Jamie and his team are most definitely testing the virus hypothesis. If every process in the methodology can be shown to be flawed there is simply no leg left for virologists and their "viruses" to stand on.
I'm not sure what your issue is Mia, because I didn't write that Jamie's experiments only aim to point out the flaws in the cell culture method. I pointed out the fact that his experiments differ from the challenge in the STVDS, and I pointed out (based on Jamie's own descriptions) that his culture experiments are not testing a virus hypothesis.
I also explained what a proper control would look like if testing a virus hypothesis, because Betsy had indicated that:
"it is necessary to conduct control experiments. These are experiments in which the same procedure is followed with all of the same substances and ingredients in the same amounts and conditions, but no fluid supposedly containing a virus is added."
If I wrote something "not correct" please quote me.
Also can you please show me (with an actual quote) where Jamie has indicated that he will test a virus hypothesis? Because I watched/listened to both of his presentations (and read "DPL's" write up and never heard or read that.
In his audio presentation with "DPL" Jamie indicated that he hopes to purchase "virus isolates" to see if adding them to a culture "drastically changes" the CPE. Adding a fake-isolate to a culture is not a valid way to test a "virus" hypothesis and you know it.
With all due respect Mia, you still don't seem to understand the difference between testing a virus hypothesis in a valid manner and showing that the assumptions, claims and evidence of virologists are idiotic - even though I've gone over this with you repeatedly.
My issue was with how you described Jamie and his team's control experiments and what they had set out to do. You said, " He isn't testing a virus hypothesis, rather he is showing that you don't need to add anything at all from a patient in order to get CPE. "
First, Jamie and his team are doing far more than simply demonstrating no patient sample is needed to induce CPE - as already explained in my initial reply.
Second, your statement is also inaccurate because as Jamie has explained (and as set out in Dpl's write up), in addition to not adding patient samples to cultures and to," act as a kind of "Positive Control" [they] added sputum from a healthy human as a sample into quite a few of [their] cultures to see if that affected the amount of CPE that took place." As such, more than one type of control experiment was run on the cell culture method in attempt to further demonstrate the lack of control or flaws inherent in the experiment.
Third, it is clear that Jamie and his team are attempting to demonstrate by means of various control experiments that every experiment /method relied upon by virologists to prove the presence of "viruses" is flawed and demonstrates no such thing.
To say that the only aim of the control experiments is to show that the methods of virologists are idiotic and not to also ultimately show that "viruses" could never have been demonstrated to exist, is illogical.
To then also suggest that this can not be the team's ultimate aim because Jamie hasn't said so is also nonsensical. This is clearly an instance where it goes without saying.
Especially, considering Jamie has in fact said, "Taking inspiration from the control experiments conducted by Dr. Stefan Lanka, we looked not only to replicate his findings but to expand on them, scrutinizing every single point of reference virologists quote as evidence that “viruses” exist." (Dpl's write up).
I am not concerned here with how you think things should be done or what you think qualifies as a control experiment. The point I am making is what you have said Jamie and his team are doing and why, is patently wrong.
Mia, I'm not going to waste time going in circles with you. You have not pointed out anything that I wrote that is "not correct" or shown where Jamie has indicated that he will perform a valid experiment to test a virus hypothesis. If you can't provide quotes to show these things, please drop this.
Fyi, sputum from a healthy human is not my idea of a positive control. Not sure what logic you're relying on there. Why would you expect it to cause CPE (or any other effect that is interpreted as evidence of a virus)?
Sputum from a healthy human is also not a valid IV for testing a virus hypothesis - purified particles would be necessary. If one doesn't get CPE when adding sputum from a healthy human, then one might decide there is no point in bothering to carry on to experiments with purified particles. But there is no way to obtain evidence that there is a virus, simply by using sputum.
(Btw, you might want to point out to "DPL" that he indicated back on June 13th that when adding the sputum the CPE remained the same or lowered, but in the screenshots he shared the CPE is higher when the sputum was added.)
Newsflash: showing that the assumptions, claims and evidence of virologists are idiotic (which btw doesn't require anyone to carry out new experiments) automatically shows that "viruses" have not been demonstrated to exist. That is the whole point of what no-virus people have been doing all this time, Mia.
You are projecting things onto me that I've not written.
Regarding Dr. Lanka's experiments, based on what I've heard from Jamie he will not be replicating them, rather he will be doing his experiments differently in order to address criticisms that have been levelled against Dr. Lanka's experiments.
I didn't invent the scientific method or logic, Mia. This isn't about what I "think".
Be sure to include quotes when responding, otherwise this is a waste of time.
Really appreciate your succinct writing! Keep it up
Thanks!
What did you end up doing as a career from your English degree?
Thanks for asking! I got a BA in English in 1973 and worked in writing jobs, mostly journalism or related, which is what I really wanted to do anyway. I also worked at a knitting store and started and ran a small non-profit. After that I went back to higher ed, 30 years after my BA, and got a Master of Liberal Studies, and during those years I had a chance to teach, and I loved it! To pursue teaching at the college level, I got my PhD in English and by then I was in my early 60s. I also realized by the time I finished in 2015 that I'd have to work as an adjunct, probably teaching college writing rather than literature, and getting very low pay and having no job security, so I started doing academic editing. That's been great, except I'm being replaced by robots now, as many grad students and professionals who write academic papers are using AI. So glad I am not a writing teacher now, with AI so easily available to students to do their writing for them! But starting this column has got me back to my first love, which is writing.
I was an allopathic RN for 25
Years and studying natural approaches for 10 years. It
Was very hard for me to wrap my head around the issue of contagion. I believe only my diverse life experience has finally enlightened me. I was a hospice nurse for some time and I began to notice photons leaving the body a few Minutes after death. I am very intuitive and I felt it was light leaving the cells as they died. So I’ve had dreams and feel contagion is being in the close area of someone who is sick and when their cells die they leave via photons and an electromagnetic biological being can receive the photon under certain circumstances. The photons can share some of the same symptoms that the person whose cells died and also their body will begin to remove them from their body. This is pretty far out for most people but when you know you know.
I’m not saying this always happens but it sometimes does and the body doesn’t have to die only some cells for the photons to pass from one body to another. They would need to be in close proximity of the photons.
So interesting! Thank you for sharing that information.
I've noticed the 'no virus' debate has a tendency to get caught up in the eternal silly string that is virology and in doing so lose sight of the big picture. The Kaufman/ Kirsch 'debate' was an example of this.
I am more inclined to give them the existence of the virus, but insist that 'viruses' get redefined based on observations in the real world (the world of snot and sniffles), rather than let 'viruses' seek sanctuary in the digital realm where anything can be said to 'exist' because the constraints of nature do not apply.
I have a new working definition of 'viruses' (see link) in case anyone is interested (it's not too far removed from the definition of unicorns).
I feel we have a better chance redefining 'viruses' as a kind of cultural/ mythological/ superstitious/ digital entity than we do of claiming they 'don't exist'. In essence, it's the same thing but by redefining 'viruses' (rather than denying them) we take away the conflict and division.
I don't 'deny' viruses... I simply recognise them as powerful figurative or cultural entities (like unicorns).
https://odysee.com/@CoronaStudies:3/CS-EFPOTA:9
Continuing with the whole virology debate is necessary I'm sure.... but it just feels like arguing over Lord of the Rings trivia.
The difference is that no one tries to inject the entire population of the world with a potentially dangerous bioweapon based on the belief that cave trolls and unicorns stomp around in the woods at night. Belief in viruses on the other hand...
While the world worries about fake viruses, I'll go on living as best I can.