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.
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.
I don't understand ANY of it..or why this is used..and that, and why it wouldn't kill a virus if such existed? I want to SEE under a microscope an actual virus in like mucus from a nose a sneeze..a living cell....side by side two cells one with a virus and one without.
This seems to me like the alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.
I will NEVER be smart enough to understand how this method was developed or how it was justified.
I should be happy being STUPID, but I'm not. What is wrong with me?
cell cultures dont find virus or supposed virus effects, they only tell us cells die with starvation and antibiotics whether or not patient samples are put in (samples that do not have the components identified, certainly not nano components).
> This seems to me like the alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.
Actually, transmutation of elements is a lot more likely than what virologists do.
Biological systems already do it. Look up "biological transmutation." Chickens do it all the time--a daily egg layer excretes far more Ca+ than she takes in. There is ample evidence she has the capacity to transmute K (potassium) to Calcium/carbonate, if her diet is high enough in the former and balanced in other elements.
The standard model of the elements cannot account for this. Kaal et al.'s "structured atom" model can.
You're not stupid. You will never see a 'virus' under a microscope, even a powerful electron microscope, because they don't exist. Whatever comes out of the nose of someone with a cold does NOT contain 'virus particles.'
Have had these videos for a year now.... Can you imagine how I was feeling when I had the Astrologer Eric Coppolino saying he thought that it was a Poornima Waugh HOAX! I was almost wetting myself.
These people aren't serious and it is no wonder "No Virus" has had such a bad name....
The supplement form is worse than useless vs morning sun on skin & cold water fatty fish. Also, you know that huge Rat Poison brand “D-Con”? Guess what it’s one active ingredient is. Yup. https://vet.purdue.edu/addl/news/rodenticide-revolution.php
Mike, in your research have you gone back to the beginnings for what they call "Vitamin D"? How it was discovered/isolated and the methods behind it? I have been digging on the various so-called vitamins for a few months now. Finding the foundational papers for vitamin discoveries is VERY difficult. One would think for all the handing out of Nobel Booby Prizes, these papers would be stamped all over the internet.
What is curious and strange with most, if not all of these vitamin seeking papers is that you basically have nutritional animal studies in which the study animals are already sick with some various symptoms. Rather than exploring what is actually IN the diet of the sick animals that may be the cause of the symptoms (no mention of environment either- are they raised in the lab?), they are looking for 'something' that is NOT IN the diet that is causing it. They are ASSUMING 'deficiency' at the beginning of all of the experiments. It's like trying to prove a negative. Not "what is in this diet that is making them sick?... it is automatically what is NOT in the diet to "cure" them?" Subsequently the journey to find whatever you hope (wish) to find is on...}} Rarely, if ever, can you find how the diets and variables in any study groups were controlled for. It's all a bunch of assumptions and question begging from the get go.
I recently did some digging on "K" as I was trying to talk my wife out of getting some for my child's early tooth decay. I took some notes.
1) In the 1937 paper/study- some Baby chicks have bleeding dis-ease symptoms...what is causing it?
2) They found when you feed chicks ether-extracted meat powder and fish meal, they bleed more.
3) When you feed them cabbage, they don't bleed anymore.
4) When fed another diet of processed shit (-ether extracted- dry yeast, casein, sucrose, salts, cod liver oil), they also bleed more. If given alfalfa, bleeding symptoms stop.
5) One simple and logical conclusion would be that feeding chicks a bad and completely foreign diet produces excessive bleeding symptoms. Feeding them a natural forage of cabbage and/or alfalfa does not. Does this mean "vitamins" are in cabbage and alfalfa? Or does it mean you shouldn't feed baby chicks processed garbage?
6) My take: "deficiency" is typically a misdirect for what is actually acute poisoning. (and all "vitamin" deficiency lab value tests are just pharmaceutically driven marketing gimmicks where the goal posts can move as needed).
Here is an example of how they "isolate" the so-called K vitamins. They call it "extraction". Look at the gauntlet of chemicals the substance has to run through (acetone, hexane, methyl alcohol, bleaching, heating, cooling). It looks more like a chemical manufacturing process than an "isolation". Whatever the finished product that falls out in the bottom of the lab beaker, it cannot be something found in the natural world. They made it. They didn't find it.
From "The Anti-hemorrhagic vitamin" ("K") in Poultry Science 1937
Almquist and Stokstad (1935a, b) showed that the anti-hemorrhagic factor was localized in the non-saponifiable fraction of alfalfa lipids. It was stable to heating in air at 120°C. for 24 hours. Chlorophyll and sterol fractions from alfalfa were impotent. Neither carotene nor xanthophyll were effective as anti-hemorrhagic agents. The active factor possessed no appreciable basicity. Almquist (1936a) concentrated the antihemorrhagic factor by extraction of dried alfalfa with hexane, preliminary adsorption with activated magnesium oxide and carbon to remove the green and a portion of the red and yellow pigments, and separation of solid inert material by concentration and cooling both in hexane and in methyl alcohol. Addition of water to the final solution of the factor in methyl alcohol caused the separation of a reddish oil very rich in the anti-hemorrhagic vitamin. This oil was adequate at a level of 2 milligrams per kilogram of diet by the preventive method of assay. The concentrate contained a small proportion of sterols which were removed by digitonin without affecting the potency. It also contained a negligible quantity of saponifiable material. Saponification procedures were abandoned because it was found that the factor was alkali-labile. Residual carotenoids were removed by treatment with activated magnesium oxide. The material not adsorbed had the appearance of a light yellow, viscous oil when free from the solvent and prevented hemorrhagic symptoms when fed at a level of 2 milligrams per kilogram of diet. By careful addition of bromine, the reddish oil could be bleached without great destruction of the factor. Dam and Schonheyder (1936) concentrated the anti-hemorrhagic factor by extracting dried alfalfa with acetone, taking up in petroleum ether, partitioning with 90 percent methyl alcohol (during which the factor remains for the most part in the petroleum ether), transferring the concentrate to absolute alcohol and removing inert solids by cooling and filtering. Adsorption reagents (calcium carbonate and sugar) were found effective in further concentration. The most active concentrate had the appearance of a viscous oil. Since these workers used entirely the curative technique in their assays, it is difficult to compare the potencies of the products obtained by the two methods but the fact remains that very small quantities of the concentrates are required. These workers also abandoned saponification because of destruction of the anti-hemorrhagic factor. Almquist (1936b) by distillation of his concentrate under a high vacuum (molecular distillation) increased its potency approximately four fold. A first distillate fraction consisting of a colorless oil obtained at 50 to 70°C. and a pressure of 10~6 mm. of mercury proved to be inactive. A second distillate obtained at a temperature range of 120 to 145°C. was adequate at a level of y2 mg. per kilogram of diet. A non-volatile residue fraction containing most of the pigments gave no evidence of activity. The active distillate still had the appearance of a yellow viscous oil.
Fast forward... phytonadione is the name of this chemical sludge in your K bottle and what they want to inject into your baby the moment he pops out... cuz if you get in a car accident on the way home from the hospital, he might have a bleeding problem.
The same basic program applies to several other of the so-called "vitamins". My only conclusion thus far is that they don't find any such thing in food/nature. They adulterate something that once was a food and run it through a lab chemical odyssey to manufacture a completely new end product. The concept of a vitamin is a purely human imaginary construct. Anyone who takes any of these products is just taking a synthetic drug (which have effects of course). It must be amazing how they took all those benefits ("vit d")from the sun, reduced it down to a single miracle entity, and captured it in a bottle to help those who 'don't get enough sun'....If you look into the dubious 'fortification' programs, you'll also stumble into some compelling evidence that the entire thing is a poisoning campaign and fraud from the outset.
Mike, the most important thing in all this, as you show, is to continue to ask questions, without dismissing other opinions. You mentioned you’ve done extensive research & nobody testing vitamin D…you should know mice & rats are heavily relied on in drug safety studies, so D-CON has already done the research for you. Do more if you have mice. Vitamin D3 in supplement form (aka rat poison) is also toxic to humans by m song with our kidneys which f’s with our blood calcium levels, making our bones less dense & more brittle.
My belief is the human body ‘produces’ many things internally like a chemical compounding lab. So, it produces vitamin D when we (the water in our cell walls) get ‘energized’ by sunshine. It’s not even comparable to eating something, especially rat poison, or ANY isolated so-called vitamin or nutrient. The act of isolation removes the health benefit you would get by eating Whole Foods containing that ‘vitamin’. Apologies if my unscientific explanation isn’t clear.
Yes, high latitude folks go without sunshine for many months, but perhaps the quality of sun (lower angle) at those latitudes prompts bodies to make higher internal levels of vitamin D when it does shine? I cannot speak to the vitamin D found in cold water fish but suspect it is also easier for our bodies to benefit from when bound up in whole fish, accompanied by countless other ‘compounds’. That’s probably why those northern europeans send us the clear cod liver oil & keep the darker, bottom of the barrel, for themselves.
Fruit/Vit C did not cure scurvy... another repeated/believed story that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Many Europeans did not have access to fruit in cold seasons and did not 'come down' with Scurvy. The sailors were exposed to all sorts of environmental and poisoned/rotted food conditions on their long journeys which was ignored by the vitamin finders....
There are a multitude of examples where populations are either devoid of claimed vitamin or practically starved to death in prisoner camps where the deficiency diseases should be rampant but do not bother to show up at all. So-called deficiency diseases are cover stories for toxicity diseases.
... never blame the poisons... that's the medical model.
As a former lab tech and PhD student then post doctoral researcher, I recognise all these steps, agree that the team covered all reasonable bases and with the conclusion that “cytopathic effect” (failure of cells to grow well, to become malformed, to detect from their normal adherent (to the plates) state and to die, is ALL due to the conditions of culturing the cells.
When a paper claiming “the isolation of virus X” uses these methods AND (as they ALWAYS do) fails to include THESE very control studies within their experimental protocols, their claim for “cytopathic effect demonstrates the inferred presence of said virus X” is invalid, scientifically fraudulent (because EVERY study must include relevant controls for the effect studied) and commonly called “a lie”, when the claimed summary findings are repeated to non technical audiences.
Thank you, Jamie and the viroLIEgy control experiments team.
Jamie, in my experience, general audiences don't even realize there is such a thing as "research methodology," never mind how the design of an experiment can influence outcomes. (Never mind how the design can be deliberately engineered to reach the desired outcomes. Which are often geared to product sales.)
This is one of the sad outcomes of the dumbassification of schooling, coupled with the in vacuo explosion of the revolving-door Permastate/Corporate research establishment.
Another piece of that is that the people hired to sell the P/C research establishment's stories tend to be liberal arts or social studies majors, whose referent systems tend to be mythological/narrative, not empirical. They happily deliver whatever storyline will keep their rice bowls full.
This is an immense topic with major effects on civilization. I appreciate your efforts and read with interest.
In MY experience (teaching at a university for 15+ years) even professional audiences don't realize that the design of an experiment can influence the results. Postgrad research students are, in my experience, especially bad at spotting flaws in methodology and bad also at asking critical questions about established (but flawed) research processes.
It's all become a ritualistic set of practices that nobody questions. Like voodoo. Or haruspicy. "But we priests have always cut the guts out of sheep and goats to figure out how and when to plant the crops, how else would you do it?"
Arguably that might make more sense than most of what passes for experimental design decisions.
In my last NGO job, over 25 years ago, I was asked to read and critique a modeling design (complex spreadsheet) for several large data sets. I went in, looked at the formulas, saw undergrad tier errors and flaws. Yikes. Documented them.
The reaction of those who asked me to do that review--ostensibly out of a desire to make the product better--was akin to me tracking dog poop into a conference room. They didn't come out and say it, but it was pretty clear that they had envisioned my task as signing on to what they had created, adding my imprimatur as the person in the organization with the methods juju.
So this movement where people like Jamie get down in the mud with methods used by virologists (or whoever) is in my view salubrious. Even though there's gonna be an uphill climb to do the larger teaching on what it all means. Per aspera ad astra and all that.
Great Jamie, you will have us all dreaming cell cultures now. Do you plan re-post of the great EM findings of objects that look exactly like claimed viruses?
Thanks Jamie, It's fascinating to see inside a virology lab.
I have run many lab "controls" and "reference samples" in labs, pilot plants and large commercial operations to test new products or troubleshoot but never heard the terms "negative" or "positive" or "dummy" controls until I started looking into virology. So I can understand people being confused by all this who have no idea what "control" means in science or technology. It's not taught in school - neither is the scientific method! Perhaps "null" or "zero" control would be a better term since "negative" implies removal of something?
Q1) At what point would a sample from a sick person normally be added in? Is such timing subjective?
Q2) It appears that "negative control" means all the steps are the same except for omitting the biological sample to be tested?
Q3) Is this the first time that virology controls have been properly documented and videoed? Cheers
1. Infection is usually done when plating the reagents from stock.
2. Correct "negative control" is the null or zero.. I.e the observable effect is meant to NOT occur. As opposed to the positive control where the observable effects MUST occur.
3. Proper controls... Yes I believe so.... certainly videod.. Lanka did some before but not to the detail we have carried out here.
Excellent, I am interested to see what the rebuttal is. The experiment itself seems to have no issues. Claiming pcr/genetics is kind of irrelevant since they are easily manipulated and you need cell culture isolation to confirm and purify virus beforehand anyway. What are your thoughts Jamie, anything you could of done better in hindsight or want to experiment with next in regards to tissue cultures?
Hey David.. There is always more to do lol.. Would like to have done a cross spectrum of cell lines to note differences.. Would have liked to conduct a Positive Control with viral titre as part of the experiment rather than relying on Cross-ref papers.
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
Thanks for the layperson’s explanation. I was confused if a “virus” had been introduced or not.
Subscribed…
Thank you for writing this it helps musicians to understand.
I appreciate your clear and simple explanation.
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!
Excellent work!
I don't understand ANY of it..or why this is used..and that, and why it wouldn't kill a virus if such existed? I want to SEE under a microscope an actual virus in like mucus from a nose a sneeze..a living cell....side by side two cells one with a virus and one without.
This seems to me like the alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.
I will NEVER be smart enough to understand how this method was developed or how it was justified.
I should be happy being STUPID, but I'm not. What is wrong with me?
See the virus finding section in this post
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-virus-rouse-going-going-gonzo
cell cultures dont find virus or supposed virus effects, they only tell us cells die with starvation and antibiotics whether or not patient samples are put in (samples that do not have the components identified, certainly not nano components).
> This seems to me like the alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.
Actually, transmutation of elements is a lot more likely than what virologists do.
Biological systems already do it. Look up "biological transmutation." Chickens do it all the time--a daily egg layer excretes far more Ca+ than she takes in. There is ample evidence she has the capacity to transmute K (potassium) to Calcium/carbonate, if her diet is high enough in the former and balanced in other elements.
The standard model of the elements cannot account for this. Kaal et al.'s "structured atom" model can.
https://structuredatom.org/
You're not stupid. You will never see a 'virus' under a microscope, even a powerful electron microscope, because they don't exist. Whatever comes out of the nose of someone with a cold does NOT contain 'virus particles.'
These scientific control experiments provide a strong refutation of virology. Good work Jamie!
Excellent work and documentation!
You should not use abort babies cells. It's wrong. Thanks.
That is an unfortunate part of what virologists and all clinical testing labs do. But I agree with you.
This is amazing Jamie,
Have had these videos for a year now.... Can you imagine how I was feeling when I had the Astrologer Eric Coppolino saying he thought that it was a Poornima Waugh HOAX! I was almost wetting myself.
These people aren't serious and it is no wonder "No Virus" has had such a bad name....
Having lived through decades of gaslighting attempts by supposedly no virus aids dissenters, I can totally understand.
Nice work Jamie, far more benefit to the no virus position than cholecalciferol which offers no benefit at all.
Love your handle. ^_^
Is synthetic D3 helpful or harmful?
The supplement form is worse than useless vs morning sun on skin & cold water fatty fish. Also, you know that huge Rat Poison brand “D-Con”? Guess what it’s one active ingredient is. Yup. https://vet.purdue.edu/addl/news/rodenticide-revolution.php
#fightpfake #fightpgraud #fightpfood #stayhuman
Many people receive zero vitamin D from the sunlight for 3 months out of the year.
I've researched this more than almost anyone and I found nothing against vitamin D other than hearsay and faulty experiments.
Zero experiments have been done on vitamin D with its co-factors taking, all experiments were done in isolation which will always lead to disease.
Hydrochloric acid is used in many mixtures, it's not what's used it's The end product.
Borax is poison, diatomaceous earth is poison. Chocolate and grapes can be poisonous to dogs. None of these mean they are poisonous to humans.
Many healers have used different synthetic vitamins to heal.
In defense of vitamins:
Vitamin D3 benefits:
https://amandhavollmer.substack.com/p/vitamin-d-reclaiming-its-rightful?triedRedirect=true
K2 healing the body:
https://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Known/dp/0062320041/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8
Georgi Dinkov and the importance of vitamins (Midway through the talk):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xXq4S2Dx_b8
Mike, in your research have you gone back to the beginnings for what they call "Vitamin D"? How it was discovered/isolated and the methods behind it? I have been digging on the various so-called vitamins for a few months now. Finding the foundational papers for vitamin discoveries is VERY difficult. One would think for all the handing out of Nobel Booby Prizes, these papers would be stamped all over the internet.
What is curious and strange with most, if not all of these vitamin seeking papers is that you basically have nutritional animal studies in which the study animals are already sick with some various symptoms. Rather than exploring what is actually IN the diet of the sick animals that may be the cause of the symptoms (no mention of environment either- are they raised in the lab?), they are looking for 'something' that is NOT IN the diet that is causing it. They are ASSUMING 'deficiency' at the beginning of all of the experiments. It's like trying to prove a negative. Not "what is in this diet that is making them sick?... it is automatically what is NOT in the diet to "cure" them?" Subsequently the journey to find whatever you hope (wish) to find is on...}} Rarely, if ever, can you find how the diets and variables in any study groups were controlled for. It's all a bunch of assumptions and question begging from the get go.
I recently did some digging on "K" as I was trying to talk my wife out of getting some for my child's early tooth decay. I took some notes.
1) In the 1937 paper/study- some Baby chicks have bleeding dis-ease symptoms...what is causing it?
2) They found when you feed chicks ether-extracted meat powder and fish meal, they bleed more.
3) When you feed them cabbage, they don't bleed anymore.
4) When fed another diet of processed shit (-ether extracted- dry yeast, casein, sucrose, salts, cod liver oil), they also bleed more. If given alfalfa, bleeding symptoms stop.
5) One simple and logical conclusion would be that feeding chicks a bad and completely foreign diet produces excessive bleeding symptoms. Feeding them a natural forage of cabbage and/or alfalfa does not. Does this mean "vitamins" are in cabbage and alfalfa? Or does it mean you shouldn't feed baby chicks processed garbage?
6) My take: "deficiency" is typically a misdirect for what is actually acute poisoning. (and all "vitamin" deficiency lab value tests are just pharmaceutically driven marketing gimmicks where the goal posts can move as needed).
Here is an example of how they "isolate" the so-called K vitamins. They call it "extraction". Look at the gauntlet of chemicals the substance has to run through (acetone, hexane, methyl alcohol, bleaching, heating, cooling). It looks more like a chemical manufacturing process than an "isolation". Whatever the finished product that falls out in the bottom of the lab beaker, it cannot be something found in the natural world. They made it. They didn't find it.
From "The Anti-hemorrhagic vitamin" ("K") in Poultry Science 1937
Almquist and Stokstad (1935a, b) showed that the anti-hemorrhagic factor was localized in the non-saponifiable fraction of alfalfa lipids. It was stable to heating in air at 120°C. for 24 hours. Chlorophyll and sterol fractions from alfalfa were impotent. Neither carotene nor xanthophyll were effective as anti-hemorrhagic agents. The active factor possessed no appreciable basicity. Almquist (1936a) concentrated the antihemorrhagic factor by extraction of dried alfalfa with hexane, preliminary adsorption with activated magnesium oxide and carbon to remove the green and a portion of the red and yellow pigments, and separation of solid inert material by concentration and cooling both in hexane and in methyl alcohol. Addition of water to the final solution of the factor in methyl alcohol caused the separation of a reddish oil very rich in the anti-hemorrhagic vitamin. This oil was adequate at a level of 2 milligrams per kilogram of diet by the preventive method of assay. The concentrate contained a small proportion of sterols which were removed by digitonin without affecting the potency. It also contained a negligible quantity of saponifiable material. Saponification procedures were abandoned because it was found that the factor was alkali-labile. Residual carotenoids were removed by treatment with activated magnesium oxide. The material not adsorbed had the appearance of a light yellow, viscous oil when free from the solvent and prevented hemorrhagic symptoms when fed at a level of 2 milligrams per kilogram of diet. By careful addition of bromine, the reddish oil could be bleached without great destruction of the factor. Dam and Schonheyder (1936) concentrated the anti-hemorrhagic factor by extracting dried alfalfa with acetone, taking up in petroleum ether, partitioning with 90 percent methyl alcohol (during which the factor remains for the most part in the petroleum ether), transferring the concentrate to absolute alcohol and removing inert solids by cooling and filtering. Adsorption reagents (calcium carbonate and sugar) were found effective in further concentration. The most active concentrate had the appearance of a viscous oil. Since these workers used entirely the curative technique in their assays, it is difficult to compare the potencies of the products obtained by the two methods but the fact remains that very small quantities of the concentrates are required. These workers also abandoned saponification because of destruction of the anti-hemorrhagic factor. Almquist (1936b) by distillation of his concentrate under a high vacuum (molecular distillation) increased its potency approximately four fold. A first distillate fraction consisting of a colorless oil obtained at 50 to 70°C. and a pressure of 10~6 mm. of mercury proved to be inactive. A second distillate obtained at a temperature range of 120 to 145°C. was adequate at a level of y2 mg. per kilogram of diet. A non-volatile residue fraction containing most of the pigments gave no evidence of activity. The active distillate still had the appearance of a yellow viscous oil.
Fast forward... phytonadione is the name of this chemical sludge in your K bottle and what they want to inject into your baby the moment he pops out... cuz if you get in a car accident on the way home from the hospital, he might have a bleeding problem.
The same basic program applies to several other of the so-called "vitamins". My only conclusion thus far is that they don't find any such thing in food/nature. They adulterate something that once was a food and run it through a lab chemical odyssey to manufacture a completely new end product. The concept of a vitamin is a purely human imaginary construct. Anyone who takes any of these products is just taking a synthetic drug (which have effects of course). It must be amazing how they took all those benefits ("vit d")from the sun, reduced it down to a single miracle entity, and captured it in a bottle to help those who 'don't get enough sun'....If you look into the dubious 'fortification' programs, you'll also stumble into some compelling evidence that the entire thing is a poisoning campaign and fraud from the outset.
Just now I read of someone improving oral health with D, K2, B vitamins, and magnesium. Any thoughts on why this would help?
Thank you.
Mike, the most important thing in all this, as you show, is to continue to ask questions, without dismissing other opinions. You mentioned you’ve done extensive research & nobody testing vitamin D…you should know mice & rats are heavily relied on in drug safety studies, so D-CON has already done the research for you. Do more if you have mice. Vitamin D3 in supplement form (aka rat poison) is also toxic to humans by m song with our kidneys which f’s with our blood calcium levels, making our bones less dense & more brittle.
My belief is the human body ‘produces’ many things internally like a chemical compounding lab. So, it produces vitamin D when we (the water in our cell walls) get ‘energized’ by sunshine. It’s not even comparable to eating something, especially rat poison, or ANY isolated so-called vitamin or nutrient. The act of isolation removes the health benefit you would get by eating Whole Foods containing that ‘vitamin’. Apologies if my unscientific explanation isn’t clear.
Yes, high latitude folks go without sunshine for many months, but perhaps the quality of sun (lower angle) at those latitudes prompts bodies to make higher internal levels of vitamin D when it does shine? I cannot speak to the vitamin D found in cold water fish but suspect it is also easier for our bodies to benefit from when bound up in whole fish, accompanied by countless other ‘compounds’. That’s probably why those northern europeans send us the clear cod liver oil & keep the darker, bottom of the barrel, for themselves.
Thank you for the thoughts shared.
I have shared this to groups on telegram.
I would never give a baby a vitamin k shot as nature has created them with low "k" for a reason.
Why was scurvy cured with fruit?
Why do so many healers have success with vitamin D3 and its cofactors such as Amanda Vollmer who has healed thousands?
Fruit/Vit C did not cure scurvy... another repeated/believed story that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Many Europeans did not have access to fruit in cold seasons and did not 'come down' with Scurvy. The sailors were exposed to all sorts of environmental and poisoned/rotted food conditions on their long journeys which was ignored by the vitamin finders....
There are a multitude of examples where populations are either devoid of claimed vitamin or practically starved to death in prisoner camps where the deficiency diseases should be rampant but do not bother to show up at all. So-called deficiency diseases are cover stories for toxicity diseases.
... never blame the poisons... that's the medical model.
https://bmjgroup.com/vitamin-d-supplement-overdosing-is-possible-and-harmful-warn-doctors/
As a former lab tech and PhD student then post doctoral researcher, I recognise all these steps, agree that the team covered all reasonable bases and with the conclusion that “cytopathic effect” (failure of cells to grow well, to become malformed, to detect from their normal adherent (to the plates) state and to die, is ALL due to the conditions of culturing the cells.
When a paper claiming “the isolation of virus X” uses these methods AND (as they ALWAYS do) fails to include THESE very control studies within their experimental protocols, their claim for “cytopathic effect demonstrates the inferred presence of said virus X” is invalid, scientifically fraudulent (because EVERY study must include relevant controls for the effect studied) and commonly called “a lie”, when the claimed summary findings are repeated to non technical audiences.
Thank you, Jamie and the viroLIEgy control experiments team.
Thank you Mike. Happy New Year to you and your family. J
Jamie, in my experience, general audiences don't even realize there is such a thing as "research methodology," never mind how the design of an experiment can influence outcomes. (Never mind how the design can be deliberately engineered to reach the desired outcomes. Which are often geared to product sales.)
This is one of the sad outcomes of the dumbassification of schooling, coupled with the in vacuo explosion of the revolving-door Permastate/Corporate research establishment.
Another piece of that is that the people hired to sell the P/C research establishment's stories tend to be liberal arts or social studies majors, whose referent systems tend to be mythological/narrative, not empirical. They happily deliver whatever storyline will keep their rice bowls full.
This is an immense topic with major effects on civilization. I appreciate your efforts and read with interest.
In MY experience (teaching at a university for 15+ years) even professional audiences don't realize that the design of an experiment can influence the results. Postgrad research students are, in my experience, especially bad at spotting flaws in methodology and bad also at asking critical questions about established (but flawed) research processes.
Very well taken point, and I agree.
It's all become a ritualistic set of practices that nobody questions. Like voodoo. Or haruspicy. "But we priests have always cut the guts out of sheep and goats to figure out how and when to plant the crops, how else would you do it?"
Arguably that might make more sense than most of what passes for experimental design decisions.
In my last NGO job, over 25 years ago, I was asked to read and critique a modeling design (complex spreadsheet) for several large data sets. I went in, looked at the formulas, saw undergrad tier errors and flaws. Yikes. Documented them.
The reaction of those who asked me to do that review--ostensibly out of a desire to make the product better--was akin to me tracking dog poop into a conference room. They didn't come out and say it, but it was pretty clear that they had envisioned my task as signing on to what they had created, adding my imprimatur as the person in the organization with the methods juju.
So this movement where people like Jamie get down in the mud with methods used by virologists (or whoever) is in my view salubrious. Even though there's gonna be an uphill climb to do the larger teaching on what it all means. Per aspera ad astra and all that.
Great Jamie, you will have us all dreaming cell cultures now. Do you plan re-post of the great EM findings of objects that look exactly like claimed viruses?
Yes in the next two articles
Excellent work, Jamie...keep it up!
Thanks Jamie, It's fascinating to see inside a virology lab.
I have run many lab "controls" and "reference samples" in labs, pilot plants and large commercial operations to test new products or troubleshoot but never heard the terms "negative" or "positive" or "dummy" controls until I started looking into virology. So I can understand people being confused by all this who have no idea what "control" means in science or technology. It's not taught in school - neither is the scientific method! Perhaps "null" or "zero" control would be a better term since "negative" implies removal of something?
Q1) At what point would a sample from a sick person normally be added in? Is such timing subjective?
Q2) It appears that "negative control" means all the steps are the same except for omitting the biological sample to be tested?
Q3) Is this the first time that virology controls have been properly documented and videoed? Cheers
Hi Dave.
1. Infection is usually done when plating the reagents from stock.
2. Correct "negative control" is the null or zero.. I.e the observable effect is meant to NOT occur. As opposed to the positive control where the observable effects MUST occur.
3. Proper controls... Yes I believe so.... certainly videod.. Lanka did some before but not to the detail we have carried out here.
Excellent, I am interested to see what the rebuttal is. The experiment itself seems to have no issues. Claiming pcr/genetics is kind of irrelevant since they are easily manipulated and you need cell culture isolation to confirm and purify virus beforehand anyway. What are your thoughts Jamie, anything you could of done better in hindsight or want to experiment with next in regards to tissue cultures?
Hey David.. There is always more to do lol.. Would like to have done a cross spectrum of cell lines to note differences.. Would have liked to conduct a Positive Control with viral titre as part of the experiment rather than relying on Cross-ref papers.
love your clear honesty Jamie, breath of fresh air in this stuffy world !
Thank you,Jamie, ❤️This is invaluable,to show my friends still queuing up for their boosters against the Scary Virus 😳
Also a relative who thinks she is saving the World,( Pharma chemist.)
I don’t think it will go down well !!
Fantastic!
And I'm SURE there's an invisible virus in there...