Are They All In On It?

I am keeping an Annual Paid Subscription to just $30 to keep it affordable for all. All your help toward falsifying Virology with Experimental Science is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

---

---

During the recent No Virus Debate I took part in on Doc Malik’s Podcast I was instructed to answer a typical type of bullshit question drummed up by the dwellers that occupy these channels, the Alt Helf Black Pill Doom merchant types, that spend most of their time waxing lyrical over the benefits of ingesting Apple flavoured Pesticide : “If what you are saying is true, are all the virologists lying or are they all deluded”?

First let me address the absurdity of this Non-Question designed to bait and ensnare a reactionary prejudice. The only appropriate answer to this question is: “How the fuck am I meant to know?”, the question may as well be “What colour underwear did every Virologist wear on Tuesday 14th September 2011?”. To even get close to be able to answer this question you’d first have to have met every Virologist. Then you’d have to know them so explicitly well you’d be able to judge their motives on a day to day basis.

Intent is something that is incredibly hard to judge, only in the most serious of murder crimes is it even considered worthy to adjudicate and even then it is multi-factoral and ultimately highly subjective. This is why people who desperately want to obfuscate and astro-turf a topic try and impart these untenable and time-wasting metrics into “debate”.

But thanks to the sterling work of Albert and a real Deep Dive into the machinations and chain of command by Zkara they found these gems that really shine a light on how such a uniformity of opinion is generated amongst a profession, so big shout out to them.

---

---

In all of the experimental science conducted here at the Virology Control Studies Project we have unanimously shown and verified that the reduction of the nutrient medium, Fetal Bovine Serum, that is used to grow the cell lines out, is the cause of cytopathic morphlogies observed and Independent Laboratory verified in the cultures. This medium is split into two distinct concentrations; 10% FBS which is used to grow out the cell line, this is well accepted by the mainstream as well as our findings. 2% FBS or thereabouts (There are instructions to REMOVE completely the nutrients in some instances as you will later) is claimed to be a “maintenance medium” keeping the cells at a constant so that the “Virus” action may be studied.

This however we have categorically showed is wrong, the lowered FBS concentrations not only starve the cells but they kill them in the identical fashion to the claimed “Viral” action, thus we have falsified the cell culture isolation of all “viruses” as this is the one and only gold standard method to isolate a *NEW* virus.

There are other methods that are claimed to be able to bypass this stage such as Sucrose Density Centrifugation or PCR, however with those methods of verification you MUST first have an isolated and purified sample to offer as a benchmark. How else would you find a “Primer Sequence” or Density Gradient of a particle you didn’t now existed prior to. The analogy is like being at a murder scene and instead of first trying to find a suspect through scouring of the close proximity, finding a murder weapon or interviewing friends and family you just ring a random number in the phone book that happens to be in the zip code that the murder took place in and conclude they must’ve done the murder if they pick up the phone.

This is the real gravity of the results that we have found because the benchmark of ALL Biochemical and Immunological Assays are totally predicted on having an Isolated and Purified particle (Suspect) in the first place.

WHO is making the protocols?

In the latest Control Studies with the Vero Cells that control the claimed Cell Culture isolation of “Sars Cov 2” we showed the The Agreed upon reference material to outline protocol in Virological Isolation in Cell Cultures is defined by the Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) in the reference manual titled M41-A:

“This CLSI guideline provides essential guidance for viral culture and identification using commercially available cell cultures and reagents in clinical virology laboratories. It outlines critical factors for reliable viral culture, including cell culture selection, maintenance, quality control, specimen preparation, isolate identification, and result interpretation.”

In this reference manual it clearly instructs that all infection mediums should lower FBS concentration well below the 10% growth medium, down to a suggested 1-3% FBS, even in the case of Influenza they instruct to completely remove the FBS altogether:

Now for sake of clarity as some claim that this is fine because they run what they dubiously call a “Mock Control” which claims to operate as a Negative Control. Now obviously we have demonstrated in more than 100 consecutive cultures using 2 different Cell Lines in 2 different Laboratories, the Negative Control or “Mock Control” or whatever you want to call it fails.

However I have done a comprehensive search with a group of other researchers and also with the help of AI have found that there is no Published Virological Isolation Paper in existence with a Control that explicitly lists the methods, adding between 1-3% FBS which is the instructed concentration for “Infection” medium.

---

---

So let’s take a look at how this manual that is creating fraudulent Cell Culture “Isolates” came into acceptance with the help of our friend and researcher Zkara:

1. ISO 15189 (International Organization for Standardization, Medical laboratories) = sets the rules (“use recognized, validated methods”), but names no explicit isolation procedure

2. ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) + MRA (Mutual Recognition Arrangement) = global gating & enforcement : ILAC accreditation national body auditors (NBAs) act as auditors/gatekeepers

3. CLSI M41 (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) = explicit ILAC-accepted isolation procedure : WHO trains on it, ILAC gatekeepers accept it, labs adopt it to clear ISO 15189 audits worldwide

ISO 15189 (International Organization for Standardization, Medical laboratories, Requirements for quality and competence) defines the requirement, not the method – it obliges medical/virology labs to use recognized consensus documents and validate methods, but it does not prescribe which ones; any globally accepted reference can fulfill this clause.

ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation)

Acts as the global gating mechanism - via the MRA (Mutual Recognition Arrangement), ILAC obliges national accreditation bodies to apply ISO 15189 consistently and accept only recognized, validated methods; WHO (World Health Organization) guidance documents and training programs shape what assessors regard as “recognized consensus” at a global level.

- No global trust: Test results, inspection reports, or reference materials accredited by a non-ILAC body will not be accepted in cross-border trade, public health networks, or international tenders.

Economic / scale incentives

- Because modern labs, inspection bodies, PT providers, and RMPs rely on global recognition of their results, ILAC MRA membership is effectively mandatory in practice.

- Non-ILAC accreditations tend to be commercially irrelevant — almost all serious players go through ILAC-recognized NABs to ensure their work is accepted worldwide.

ILAC does not accredit labs directly

- ILAC only recognizes National Accreditation Bodies (NABs).

- Labs, inspection bodies, PT providers, etc. never deal with ILAC directly.

ILAC decides validity via the MRA peer-evaluation system

- ILAC runs the MRA (Mutual Recognition Arrangement).

- To join (or remain in), a National Accreditation Body must undergo peer evaluation.

- Peer evaluations are carried out by evaluation teams composed of experts from other ILAC member NABs.

Criteria for recognition

- NABs must demonstrate they accredit against the relevant ISO/IEC standards (17025, 15189, 17020, 17043, 17034, etc.).

- NABs must comply with ISO/IEC 17011 (Conformity assessment — Requirements for accreditation bodies).

- ILAC peer evaluators review:

i) NAB procedures and impartiality,

ii)competence of their assessors,

iii) case files from actual accreditations,

iv) whether the NAB follows ISO/IEC 17011 rigorously.

Decision process

- Peer evaluators report to an ILAC Arrangement Council (composed of representatives from ILAC signatories).

- The council votes on whether to admit/maintain the NAB as an ILAC MRA signatory.

- There isn’t a “single permanent expert committee” — it’s a structured peer-evaluation + council decision process.

Consequence

- If a NAB passes: its accreditations are ILAC MRA recognized internationally.

- If it fails: its accreditations are not internationally recognized.

ILAC does not determine the “gold standard methods”

- ILAC does not write technical methods.

- ILAC recognizes ISO/IEC standards as the basis for accreditation.

- These standards (17025, 15189, 17020, 17043, 17034, etc.) require labs to use recognized, validated methods but don’t specify which.

So where do the “gold standard methods” come from?

- ISO Technical Committees (e.g. ISO/TC 212 for clinical laboratories) — set high-level requirements but usually not procedural detail.

- Consensus method bodies (CLSI, WHO, IEC, ASTM, CEN, etc.) — publish technical consensus documents (e.g., CLSI M41 for viral culture).

- WHO & international funders — embed those methods in global training and funding programs, which makes them the de facto recognized reference.

- Accreditation assessors (NAB auditors) — accept those consensus documents as fulfilling the “recognized method” clause in ISO standards.

ILAC’s role in this layer

- ILAC does not choose the method; it trusts the judgment of NAB auditors, who rely on what is globally recognized (WHO guidelines, CLSI, etc.).

- ILAC enforces consistency: if NABs in multiple countries accept CLSI M41 as valid, then under the MRA, that acceptance propagates globally.

Logical outcome

- Gold standard methods emerge externally (WHO, CLSI, etc.).

- ILAC makes them globally enforceable by ensuring NABs under the MRA accept only such recognized methods.

- Thus, ILAC is the recognition amplifier, not the originator of the methods.

c) NAB Assessors Choose Acceptable References

During audits, assessors check whether the lab’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are traceable to authoritative references.

CLSI M41 has been widely accepted by NAB assessors worldwide as the recognized viral culture consensus method.

d) CLSI M41 is the consensus expert-chosen method

CLSI M41 becomes the de facto global reference – because both WHO technical guidance and ILAC-recognized assessors treat it as an authoritative consensus method, labs worldwide adopt M41 as the most straightforward way to meet ISO 15189 requirements and secure globally recognized accreditation.

Full name:

- M41-A: Viral Culture; Approved Guideline

Publisher:

- Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), formerly NCCLS.

Scope:

- Provides step-by-step guidance for viral culture and identification procedures.

- Covers specimen handling, cell line selection, culture techniques (tube culture, shell vial), identification (immunofluorescence, cytopathic effect), biosafety, and quality control.

- Designed for use in clinical virology laboratories and public health labs.

Status:

- “A” means Approved Guideline (after public comment and consensus vote).

- There have been revisions (e.g., M41-A2), labs are usually expected to use the latest edition.

Purpose:

- Serves as a recognized consensus method to meet accreditation requirements under ISO 15189, CAP, CLIA, etc.

- Acts as a reference point for harmonizing viral culture methods globally.

Network Effect Makes CLSI M41 the De Facto Gate:

Because ILAC signatories mutually recognize each other’s accreditations, once enough NABs use CLSI M41 as the reference, it becomes the global baseline.

Summary Takeaway

Before 1990s: viral culture = ad-hoc methods, WHO/CDC manuals.

1990s: NCCLS drafted M41-P (Proposed).

~1999–2000: became M41-A (Approved Guideline) — first formalized viral culture consensus.

2012: revised as M41-A2, aligning with modern rapid culture techniques.

Terminology: always “M41”; no prior name within CLSI numbering system.

Detailed Lineage and Timeline

1970s-1980s

- U.S. and European virology labs relied on lab-developed SOPs for viral culture (tube cultures, cytopathic effect ID, immunofluorescence).

- No single authoritative global guideline; knowledge circulated through textbooks, CDC/WHO manuals, and peer-reviewed protocols.

~1999–2000: First approval

- After consensus review and ballot, NCCLS/CLSI released M41-A: Viral Culture; Approved Guideline.

- “M” = Microbiology, “41” = sequential numbering of CLSI microbiology documents, “A” = Approved Guideline.

- This was the first time the viral culture method was formalized as a globally citable consensus document.

2000s: Diffusion

- Adopted in U.S. labs as reference for CLIA ’88 and CAP accreditation.

- WHO/PAHO/CDC began using M41 content in lab training programs, embedding it internationally.

2012: Revision

- CLSI released M41-A2 (second edition).

- Incorporated newer shell vial culture, rapid antigen detection integration, biosafety updates, and harmonization with molecular confirmation.

Present

- M41-A2 is the current edition.

- Terminology has remained consistent: “M41” has always meant Viral Culture in the CLSI document catalog.

- Pre-M41, there was no CLSI/NCCLS viral culture document — only scattered WHO manuals and individual lab SOPs.

4) Global enforcement mechanisms

a) Supply side (soft enforcement → embedded in capacity building)

- WHO programs (GISRS, Polio, Arbovirus, etc.): distribute CLSI-aligned viral culture SOPs during national lab training.

- World Bank & development financing: embed WHO/ISO-aligned lab capacity requirements in project loans.

- UNAIDS:

i) Publishes strategic guidance for HIV diagnostics and lab systems.

ii) Shapes national HIV policies to align with ISO 15189 accreditation and “recognized consensus methods.”

iii) Functions as a normative broker, pushing governments to align lab standards with WHO/CLSI guidance even before funders impose hard conditions.

- Effect: labs adopt CLSI methods as “best practice” because they are taught as standard and tied to baseline capacity-building funds.

b) Demand side (hard enforcement → tied to funding/contracts)

i) PEPFAR financing requirements: HIV labs must achieve ISO 15189 accreditation under an ILAC MRA NAB. To pass audits, they adopt CLSI protocols → no accreditation = no PEPFAR funds.

ii) Big Pharma, diagnostics firms, global funders (WHO, GAVI, Global Fund, Gates, etc.): contracts, clinical trial participation, and procurement eligibility all conditioned on ILAC-recognized accreditation. This enforces use of CLSI-validated methods (e.g., M41) as the only globally acceptable compliance route.

c) Logical outcome

- Soft supply side (WHO/World Bank/UNAIDS) seeds adoption by training labs in CLSI procedures.

- Hard demand side (PEPFAR + Pharma/funders) locks adoption by making ILAC/ISO 15189 accreditation, and thus CLSI alignment — a financial precondition.

- Together, this creates a global de facto mandate: CLSI protocols → ISO 15189 compliance → ILAC recognition → funding and market access.

Enforcement Chronology

This timeline shows how UNAIDS (policy), WHO (technical training), and World Bank (financing conditions) progressively layered soft enforcement so that, by the time PEPFAR + pharma/funders imposed hard conditionality, CLSI alignment + ISO 15189 under ILAC was already the accepted baseline.

1996: UNAIDS founded → begins issuing global HIV strategy and diagnostics guidance; sets early policy expectation for harmonized laboratory standards.

Late 1990s: WHO GISN (Global Influenza Surveillance Network) → distributes standardized viral culture protocols (later CLSI-aligned) across national reference labs.

2000: World Bank MAP (Multi-Country HIV/AIDS Program) → finances lab strengthening projects with embedded WHO/UNAIDS guidance as conditions.

2001: UNGASS HIV/AIDS Declaration → UNAIDS pushes member states to strengthen lab systems; “quality-assured diagnostics” framed as global obligation.

2003: WHO launches GISRS (rebranded influenza system) → embeds CLSI-aligned viral culture SOPs in global training.

2004–2007: WHO + UNAIDS early lab strengthening manuals → explicitly recommend ISO 15189 as the gold framework for national HIV and virology labs.

2006: onward World Bank health-sector loans → tie lab capacity projects to ISO/WHO-aligned quality systems (soft financial linkage).

2009: WHO GISRS + polio/arbovirus lab networks → CLSI M41-aligned culture methods formalized in outbreak response SOPs.

2010s: UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets → diagnostic/lab quality (ISO 15189) positioned as essential to HIV treatment cascade; national programs pressured to align labs with CLSI/ISO standards.

b) Demand side hard enforcement

Soft enforcement (UNAIDS/WHO/World Bank) ran from mid-1990s to ~2006.

Hard conditionality began 2007–2010 (with SLIPTA + PEPFAR/CDC requirements) and was fully entrenched by the mid-2010s, once pharma, diagnostics, and global funders had aligned procurement and contracting rules with ILAC/ISO 15189.

2003: PEPFAR launched Over time becomes >$110 billion cumulative funding, the largest disease-specific global health program in history → initial focus on rapid HIV treatment access; lab quality discussed but not yet tied strictly to accreditation.

2004–2006: Early PEPFAR lab strengthening → CLSI invited to run workshops in Africa/Asia; first push for standardized methods, but accreditation still aspirational.

2007 – CDC/PEPFAR “Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation” (SLIPTA) → formal framework to move national labs toward ISO 15189 accreditation. Soft expectation begins to harden.

2008–2010: PEPFAR financing conditionality emerges → major reference and HIV-testing labs receiving U.S. funding required to seek ISO 15189 via ILAC-recognized NABs (often SANAS, SADCAS). Funding tied to accreditation progress.

2010: Global Fund Quality Assurance Policy update → procurement funds restricted to labs/tests operating under recognized accreditation.

2011: Gates Foundation & GAVI diagnostics initiatives → tie funding and procurement contracts to ISO 15189-accredited labs (for HIV, TB, malaria).

2012–2015: Pharmaceutical/IVD firms → clinical trials and diagnostic kit validations restricted to ISO 15189/ILAC-accredited labs; becomes industry-wide baseline.

Mid-2010s: Consolidation → for HIV, TB, and virology reference labs: no ISO 15189 accreditation (via ILAC NAB) = no eligibility for PEPFAR, Global Fund, or major pharma trial contracts.

Note: Funding vs. Conditionality

PEPFAR (The sheer size of PEPFAR’s budget meant its conditionality alone could drive global lab compliance; once harmonized with the Global Fund and industry, it became inescapable)

- PEPFAR is a U.S. government bilateral program (State Dept. + USAID + CDC + HHS + DoD).

- It has its own money appropriated by U.S. Congress (tens of billions since 2003).

- It directly funds national labs, training, reagents, equipment, and technical assistance.

- Conditionality came in when CDC/PEPFAR linked continued PEPFAR support to ISO 15189 accreditation progress.

Global Fund

- The Global Fund is a multilateral pool fund (U.S., EU, Gates, etc. contribute).

- PEPFAR is one of the largest donors to the Global Fund (alongside others).

- The Global Fund operates separately, but harmonized policies with PEPFAR around 2010.

- Its Quality Assurance Policy (2010) formalized conditionality: procurement money only flows if diagnostics/tests are ISO-accredited.

Interaction

- PEPFAR = bilateral money + direct conditionality on labs.

- Global Fund = multilateral money + parallel conditionality on procurement/implementation.

- The two reinforced each other: a lab couldn’t sidestep, both bilateral and multilateral streams demanded ISO/ILAC accreditation.

Conclusion

It’s a pretty easy conclusion to draw from the clear directives set out by the WHO, UN and World Bank they are direct top down orders, vetted and put into legislation to literally force all Virology Laboratories worldwide to accept the protocols that we have demonstrated are fraudulent. The way in which they do this is simple, if you do not follow the fraudulent guidelines for “Viral” Isolation in cell culture, you do not get accreditation for your laboratory and hence cannot work as a Virologist.

There is no conspiracy, it is right out in front of your face, an absolutely typical Symptom of the festering rot that is the State, a Comply or Die set of instructions laid out that generate a completely uniform result of consensus.

“WHAT!!!! YOU ARE TELLING ME EVERY VIROLOGIST IS WRONG, AND YOU, SOME WANKER ON TWITTER IS RIGHT???”

The answer to that question is clearly demonstrated in this article, yes. Every accredited Virologist on planet Earth is forced to carry out the most crucial part of Virology, one that EVERY downstream method (which all have similar catastrophic problems btw) is dependent on with a set of reagent criteria that literally produce the results on their own. They may as well use Bananas and an Observable effect of them turning brown after a few days as evidence that a “Virus” has been Isolated.

This does beg the question, If it is really that dumb that the reagents create the results, how is it that sometimes they don’t manage to get CPE in the cell culture? Sometimes the virologists actually don’t manage to get enough breakdown of the line and claim there is no “Virus” in the same, like they did with about 5 different cell lines, before they settled on Vero Cells with “Sars Cov 2”?

Well, firstly the Vero Cell is the most fragile of the cell lines, so easiest to break down, all the others can go for a bit longer even in starvation medium, the HEK cell line took about 3 days before real CPE was seen rather than the 24hrs for Vero in our experiments. Secondly and rather ironically, our Control Cultures CPE was drastically WORSE than the Positive Controls we cross referenced where they claim to add infectious agents. It seems that just adding more vaguely healthy cells especially from Clinical Samples of extremely low grade disease such as “the Flu” might actually be adding a slight nutrient source to keep the starved cells alive that bit longer. So only in severe cases where symptoms are that bad and the clincal samples that are taken are mostly dead or nutrient deficient or maybe contain some chemical detox (Arsenic, Metals, Organophosphates ETC) that actually mean the starved cell lines continue on the same path that they would have done on their own.

So what does that mean for our very initial question. Are they ALL in on it? Well, Yes and No. Just like every Public Servant, Doctor whether private or State, indeed every single person either directly or indirectly employed by the State (Without wishing to get too deep into this subject, that is Practically every SME and every National/Multinational) they have to toe the line or not be able to feed their children. That is how the State operate, like the Mafia, with taxation literally extorted from people through threat of violence.

So, are the Virologists to blame? Kinda, they are taking money and certainly not questioning anything that they are doing, but I think it would be a little harsh to suggest there was much intent to deceive as a gross generalization. However the UN, WHO and the CLSI have all signed on the dotted line for these protocols to be forced into laboratories around the world. If anyone should be blamed and certainly scrutinized then it is them who have provably fabricated the hoax pandemic of 2020, and all the others for that matter.