The Positive Control

A fair comparison.

All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology.

In the scientific experiments we have conducted we have both a Negative and Positive Control. This is because, as outlined in the numerous writings on this channel, that not only do we want to conduct good rigorous science and not be guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to the dismantling of the pseudoscience of virology , but because we believe that the control is the most fundamental part of the scientific method.

Please read more about the raw power of a control.

We have spent more than a year designing a science experiment that operates in its own right, which demonstrates the fraud of the Negative control of the Virological protocols of the Cell Culturing Isolation method. It does this repeatedly and unanimously in over 90 cultures comparing our own Negative controls of healthy HEK293 cells grown in 10% FBS nutrient medium (The Independent Variable), to the test results of the same cell lines in 2% FBS (claimed “maintenance medium).

Given that all protocols of virological isolation reduce the nutrient medium on inoculation of a sample, we have demonstrated that what they describe as a “maintenance medium” I.E an environment that will keep the cells stable and show any addition as being the cause of observed cell death is actually a fraudulent description and their reduced mediums are causing the observed cell death in a “starvation environment”. We have shown this to be done in exactly the same time frame, to exactly the same amount and with exactly the same morphological features of Cytopathic Effect that according to the American Society of Microbiology indicates the presence of a virus, in uninoculated cultures.

Do we need a Positive Control?

According to all of the tenets of science and logic the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

In Cell Culture Isolation a “Mock Control”is done in place of a Negative control where all the variables are NOT kept the same and usually takes place in growth medium. This is a fraudulent Negative Control. We have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that *IF* they carried out a Negative Control, it would be Positive for the observable effect, CPE, i.e it would FAIL.

An Observable Effect in the scientific method *should* be SPECIFIC to the Independent Variable if causation is said to be shown. If the Observable Effect is shown in a Control which cannot possibly contain the Independent Variable then it is fraudulent to claim that the proposed Independent Variable is THE cause of the Observed Effect.

Take for instance the RT-PCR test. The “Negative Control” (which actually isn’t a negative control because it contains Nuclease Free Water instead of a healthy human sample) is said to FAIL and the experiment is void if the sample amplifies. It is not a question of “To what degree does it fail” i.e How many cycles does it amplify at. If it Amplifies AT ALL the experiment is considered void… this is a BASIC tenet of science.

Some people like to argue, and more so with the cell culture isolation (given that the technique is so fundamentally pseudoscientific so is wholier than Swiss Cheese), that potentially *IF* more of the observable effect is seen in an Infected Culture compared to the Negative Control then you can infer that it is a “pathogen”in the Infected sample causing the SPECULATED rise in observed CPE.

Here are a few of the potentially infinite problems with this entirely THEORETICAL speculation:

1. A Human Sample contains, according to modern science, potentially millions/billion/infinite? components, both that we supposedly know about and can quantify and those that we don’t know about or are too small or don’t have the instruments to supposedly measure. Unless EVERY component can be separated out and isolated and controlled for, it is IMPOSSIBLE to infer a specific component is causing a speculated theoretical elevation in CPE. It is well known for instance in Published literature that Bradykinins and Histamines in mucus when “isolated” and introduced to healthy people can induce “"Influenza Type Symptoms”. Histamine Challenge Badykinin Challenge

2. A sample taken from someone experiencing disease symptoms is well…. diseased and dying. The whole point of detoxing which is seen as a symptom, is your body expelling toxins along with dead and decaying tissue. The cells that are in any biological sample will be exhibiting “apoptosis”, the generalized morphological feature of CPE. To what degree would you just be directly placing dead cells into the dish and erroneously labeling it “CPE”? You would have to have it’s own control where you would scope just the sample on its own and subtract the observed cell death from the speculated theoretical increase in CPE. Just in these two examples there is a decades worth of control experiments and isolations to even attempt to show causality.

3. There are again potentially infinite? variables to do with WHO the sample came from. Even *if* the above problems were dealt with and you had an "Isolated Biological” sample direct from the fluids of the sick person you would have to sample EVERY variable (Age, Gender, Drug intake, lifestyle, diet, levels of stress…. every variable ad infinitum) to make sure those didn’t affect the observable effects seen in the dish.

4. So what about a Viral Titre? Supposedly Purified “Virus” you can buy? Well in actual fact that is JUST 0.5/1ml of fluid direct from a cell culture. We have demonstrated in our unanimous findings that this will contain ingredients that are KNOWN to cause CPE i.e reduced FBS starvation medium, Nephrotoxic and toxic Antibiotics such as Pen/Strep, Amphotericin and Gentamicin. It may also contain already dead cells and cell debris from the previous starving of the cell line in the initial (fraudulent) “Isolation”.

FULL POSITIVE CONTROL CROSS REFERNCE

So I have adequetly expalined above why we don’t actually need to do a Positive Control in our experiments at all. BUT you should realise by now that I will leave NO STONE UNTURNED in this project. I will answer ALL *sane* criticisms and PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt to YOU (my peers) that these experiments are the most comprehensive falsifications of virology ever done.

It has been bought to my attention by a handful of people that they would be TOTALLY convinced if we compared our test to that of an infected sample. Whilst some of those people have erroneously concluded that without this data, it somehow invalidates our findings (which is plainly ridiculous), I would agree that it would ADD to the strength of our findings… so let’s do just that!

Above is one of the few Positive Controls that we ran as part of our experiment. The human body is said to contain 380 Trillion viruses and a study revealed that in healthy “Asymptomatic” humans they contain on average 5.5 different varieties of pathogenic virus at any one time.

So even though our “Positive Control” donor was “asymptomatic” it may be inferred that the sample contained an average amount of supposedly “pathogenic” “Viruses”. Thus our Positive Control adequately showed that an addition of a biological sample presumed to contain pathogenic viruses caused NO increase in observable effects of CPE. We can demonstrate this by comparing the Uninfected Countess readouts being 34% CPE compared to the almost identical 35% in the Infected culture. Note that the Contract Research Scientist that carried out the experiments noted SPECIFIC CPE morphology changes in the Uninoculated culture.

But let’s go further!!

Seen above in the top image is our Uninoculated Test Cultures. These pictures were taken at day 4 post nutrient removal by 2% FBS wash.

Now see the below picture of the Published Isolation paper. There are 4 pictures of supposedly both “Transfected”AND Infected cultures with “Adenoviruses”. These images were taken at day 5 Post Infection/transfection and according to the protocol pictured below are in the EXACT same conditions with HEK293 Cell Lines, DMEM, 2%FBS and Pen/Strep.

Although there is no Countess readout you can clearly see that without any doubt there is NO difference in the amount of observable CPE seen between our Uninoculated cultures and ALL the “Infected Cultures”in this paper.

So after 1 MORE day in incubation there is ZERO difference in amounts of CPE.

The above photos are of HEK cells that have been infected with “Adenoviruses”. This is part of the TAKARA kit to “Mega Scale Purify” Adenoviruses. Note at the EXACT day post infection the cell line seems to be exhibiting less CPE than our inoculated cultures.

This is Day 3 of a “Sars Cov 2”infected HEK cell line, exhibiting less CPE than the uninoculated cultures.

So there we have it. Even putting in what they consider to be “purified”virus or “transfecting”the culture with the genetics of ‘Viruses”causes no discernable change in the amount of CPE seen in the exact same conditions in the cell culture with no possibility of a “virus”being in there.

Everybody Happy Now? Goooooooood.