Discussion about this post

User's avatar
J.P.'s avatar
Jan 7Edited

For anyone who does not understand what this is:

In virology, because "viruses" are assumed to be obligate cellular parasites, that is, their life cycle is dependent on a host, scientists had to discover an optimal cell culture for "viruses" to grow and multiply inside.

These videos are *how* that cell culture, first developed by Johan Enders in 1953 and refined since, is prepared in a laboratory.

Cell cultures require food (Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium, DMEM, the pink/red glucose solution. Note that the pink colour disappears from the culture as the cells consume the glucose for energy). They require nutrients (Fetal Bovine Serum, FBS). Antibiotics are added to eliminate the possibility of cell death by bacterium (Penicillin G and streptomycin, Pen/Strep). The cells need to be physically separated from one another (trypsinisation), condensed (ultracentrfigation into a pellet), counted, and can be reconstituted.

In this experiment, the inputs to the cell culture were varied as follows:

1. DMEM, 10% FBS, 1x P/S

2. DMEM, 2% FBS, 1x P/S

3. DMEM, 2% FBS, 2x P/S

4. DMEM, 2% FBS, 3x P/S

5. DMEM, 1% FBS, 1x P/S

6. DMEM, 1% FBS, 2x P/S

7. DMEM, 1% FBS, 3x P/S

In a full virology isolation experiment, a contaminated "viral" sample is added to this very cell culture to see if the "virus," assumed but never proven to actually exist in the sample, can kill the cells.

If the cell culture starts to die off (cytopathy) after introduction of the "viral" sample, it is assumed that the "virus" is multiplying in the cell culture and killing the cells. When the cells die off, they leave large empty gaps (plaques) in the culture when viewed under a microscope.

In these videoed experiments, no "virus" or contaminated sample was ever added to the cell culture. I repeat: NO VIRUS SAMPLE WAS EVER ADDED TO THE CELL CULTURE. Yet the cells started to die, cytopathy was observed, plaques began to form.

Did a "virus" cause the cell death? No. Is cytopathy, therefore, *ONLY* conditional on a virus killing cells in a culture? No.

Therefore, virology's isolation methodology is falsified. Other factors can also cause cytopathy; cytopathy alone cannot be used as indicative of the assumed presence or killing powers of a "virus." This was exactly the argument of Stefan Lanka.

I argued this whole point at length in my seminal essay, "Virology's Fatal Flaw: Is it a virus at all?" The tiny nanoparticles exist. Are they cell-murdering killer "viruses"? No.

https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw

Expand full comment
Research Integrity's avatar

Very important video. As we can see, the control experiments were conducted in an adequately equipped laboratory. The materials and methods are adequately described.

It is very important that the laboratory is accredited, which means that the necessary standards are met. The inspection was conducted by the relevant accreditation body. The scientists are peer reviewed.

This is a grandiose, magnificent project with extremely high importance for science, the scientific community, but also for all of humanity.

Thank you Jamie!

Expand full comment
81 more comments...

No posts