Well worth reading this. Sasha Latypova also recently interviewed Jamie Andrews about this work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In brief, it invalidates the basic method used in all of virology to \u201cprove\u201d the existence of a virus in a clinical sample. That method is fraudulent because you get exactly the same results if you don\u2019t add a clinical sample.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You see, at the time the purported virus-containing clinical sample is added to cells in culture, changes in the medium in which the cells are being cultured (grown \/ supported) are also made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those changes to the cell culture medium are all that\u2019s needed to initiate the death of those cells.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the experimentalist claims, upon seeing cell death, \u201cHere is proof that the clinical sample contains a virus\u201d, it\u2019s total rot. Not adding that clinical sample yields exactly the same results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These proper negative controls are not included in virology papers. If these are even mentioned, the reader is left to imagine that nothing happened. This is intentionally misleading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These kinds of study provide no evidence whatsoever for the existence of viruses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Best wishes
Mike <\/p>\n\n\n\n