In this essay, it will be shown that modern VIROLOGY’S GOLD STANDARD for alleged “ISOLATION” of “viruses”—the cell culture— has been INVALIDATED.
BOTH the observation of cytopathic effects (i.e. cell lysis), AND the appearance of globules with DISTINCTIVE FEATURES and SIZE assumed to be those of viral entities, are not dependent on the introduction of a sick patient sample or of a “virus-contaminated” tissue substrate.
Understanding scientific experiments is crucial to comprehending science. One of the easiest ways to evaluate the results of an experiment is to compare it with the results of its control experiment. Control experiments are also the easiest way to demonstrate flaws in the reasoning behind an experiment or in the methods.
In the face of a literal BARRAGE of refutations by a fast-growing ARMY of virus skeptics, a number of persons defending the assertion that viruses are proven entities—and that virology is a validated and well-established science—have holed themselves up with claims that control experiments are not a necessary and essential part of science … controls are only needed in special circumstances … controls have already been done … we don’t need more experiments … and so on.
On the other side of the spectrum we have someone like Jamie Andrews who says that, in his view, “The Control Is Science.”
Personally, I find his argument quite convincing:
The Control as part of the Scientific Method has been worn away by attrition over the last Century or two whereby in most modern scientific publications it is rarely given any sort of notice. If noted I have never seen one with a specific methodology FOR the control, it is just assumed that it has been performed adequately.
I see this as no mistake. To me, this is a deliberate way of usurping Science’s greatest safety mechanism, THE part of an entire experiment where PROOF lays. Most would agree that a Control is a necessary part of the Scientific Method. I would go much further than that and say: The Control IS Science.
Science: “The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained”.
Michael Palmer MD, while admitting that control experiments are sometimes *helpful*, complains that virus skeptics are too demanding, they ask too much (emphasis added):
… while control experiments are usually a good idea and can prevent us from prematurely accepting an erroneous hypothesis as “sufficiently tested”, a real or alleged lack of control experiments does not automatically invalidate the experiments in question. Controls are not a necessary or sufficient ritual to ensure that one is doing “real science.” A control experiment serves to rule out an alternative hypothesis, usually a trivial one, which could explain the same observations that I want to explain with my preferred hypothesis. It is pointless to call for “more controls” in general, as the virus skeptics like to do, without precisely naming the alternative hypotheses that would have to be ruled out in each case.
I don’t know about you, but to me a lot of what Palmer says sounds like explaining away the problem.
My intention is not to degrade Dr. Palmer—some may recall my favorable review of his well-researched book, Hiroshima Revisited. I also hold Palmer’s co-author in defense of viruses, Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, in high esteem. I see Bhakdi as a kind, reasonable and very likeable soul and am grateful his important contribution in opposing the vaccine madness of these recent years. Yet, I have trouble comprehending their defense of poorly tested assumptions in the case of virology.
I think that the kind of control experiments required for virology to be validated and the alternative hypotheses to be tested have already been clearly stated by more than one person. For example, Stefan Lanka has proposed that there are 7 steps used in virology and that each of these steps needs to be validated using appropriate controls.
Just to take the first of these steps, the cell culture, the alternative hypothesis is that it is the starvation of the cells and addition of antibiotics that causes the effects, rather than the ASSUMED presence of a virus. The type of control experiment prescribed is to perform the same steps but without the addition of a human sample alleged to contain a virus…
Cytopathic effects in cell cultures are claimed by virologists to be evidence of both the presence of viruses and of their ability to cause disease.
Luckily, people like Stefan Lanka and Jamie Andrews put their money where their mouth is. They don’t just say proper controls are necessary and lacking but are doing something about it.
During the measles virus trials of 2014-2017, Lanka commissioned control experiments to be performed by an independent German laboratory. Those experiments were performed as stated above: a cell culture experiment following the protocol used by virologists but without the addition of a patient sample. The results confirmed just what was suspected. No sample alleged to contain a virus was needed in order to observe cytopathic effects (CPE) that virologists attribute to “viruses.”
(At the end of this article, I will discuss more control experiments being conducted by Lanka and, independently, by a team of researchers around Jamie Andrews.)
Enders and Peebles (1954)
Lanka wasn’t the first to conduct such an experiment. Amazingly, the very originators of the idea that viruses could be “isolated” using cell cultures (with the addition of antibiotics allegedly to assure that bacteria wouldn’t be involved in any of the effects, but ignoring that antibiotics themselves damage or kill cells), performed a control experiment whose results invalidated their own hypothesis—results they explained away with more claims of viruses.
The paper, a classic in virology and the first to come up with the idea of “culturing” viruses, is titled, Propogation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathic Agents from Patients with Measles. Published in 1954, it was the first paper submitted to the German courts in the Bardens vs. Lanka trials as alleged “proof” of the existence of a measles virus.
Although the paper doesn’t mention a “control experiment” per se, it does briefly describe one in a section toward the end.
"A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles."
Notice the confusing and misleading wording: “A second agent was obtained…” As if they “obtained” (!) anything that could be described as an “agent” in any of these experiments. All they did was observe cytopathic effects (and possibly siphon off the antibiotic-laden supernatant from the “culture” and then claim it was a “filterable, transmissable agent.”)
But the real eye-opener is that this was an “uninoculated culture”—i.e. no patient sample was added—yet they got cytopathic effects all the same. Not to be defeated, they go on to say:
“But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of measles were not observed.”
Again, they assume that they have (accidentally?) “infected” the cells with a cytopathogenic “agent” (ignoring that they’ve starved and poisoned them). They claim that since they observe a difference in the fixed and stained, “uninoculated” yet somehow “infected” cultures and their other “inoculated” cultures, that this means they have “isolated” distinct “agents” (measles and non-measles). The only thing that is clear is that they have made a lot of assumptions. The distinct features they claimed to be unique to measles virus would be seen by other researchers in “uninoculated” cultures as well.1
If you aren’t confused enough already, take a look of this chart on “how to culture a virus.”
No more controls or questions needed, right?
Enders wasn’t the only one who got results countering his assumption about the presence of a measles virus.
Aldhissla’s article titled Cytopathic Effects in Uninoculated Cultures documents a whole slew of such studies. The article is thorough and well written—he does an even more thorough job of debunking Enders and Peebles than I have—and I won’t try to reproduce his work here.
When virolgists see cytopathic effects in uninoculated cultures, just like Enders their assumption is always that the tissue substrate is contaminated with an unknown virus.
This is a form of logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent. It is first assumed that if a virus were present there would be cytopathic effects. But since cytopathic effects are observed even when a “virus” is not intentionally introduced, it is then assumed there must be contamination in the form of a virus. This ignores other factors that could cause the observed effects (namely, cell starvation and poisoning) and affirms that ONLY a virus could cause such effects (even when no “virus” has been observed in the first place). The REAL observervation of cytopathic effects is attributed to an IMAGINED “virus.”
As will be seen below, when electron microscopy is sometimes performed on these “cultured” samples, the observation of formations in the culture with distinct morphologies of various kinds is also not evidence of “viruses” but simply of the breakdown products of the dying cells.
Partially in response to claims that Lanka’s methods were flawed, a team of researchers surrounding Jamie Andrews are in the midst of performing the most rigorous series of control experiments ever conducted in relation to how alleged “viruses” are “detected,” “isolated,” “cultured,” “visualized” and studied. They have already completed a series of control experiments testing the cell culture hypothesis that cytopathic effects (CPE) and the appearance of “virus-like” formations is evidence of the presence of “viruses.” This to me is the most compelling evidence yet that virology is a pseudoscience.
For a complete description of the experiments, see these interviews on
These experiments have not only thoroughly shown that cytopathic effects derive from cell culture methods—and these alone without the addition of a patient sample—but that the appearance of various “virus-like particles” similar to what are claimed to be SARS-CoV2, HIV and measles virus can also be seen in the uninoculated culture on tissue substrate of the highest, purist quality. Jamie’s team has carefully selected only the best quality culturing materials to ensure no viruses are introduced at any stage of the process, yet in the small number of electron micrographs they received back from an accredited lab, one can observe the distinctive features and size of these particles.
I highly recommend watching the entire video. (See minutes 38:00 to 53:00 for a run through of the Transmission Electron Microscopy images.)
Jamie’s team is also involved in control experiments on “antibody” tests and will be conducting many other controls inluding “genome sequence” alignment of alleged viruses as funds become available. To follow their work, subscribe to
Thanks for reading To The Root! All articles are available free in view of the desperate need of humanity to awaken to the perils of global corporatocracy and deception and to seek out a better way of living based on transparency, mutual aid and simplicity.
Tobin Owl is an independent researcher/writer. Over the past four years he’s conducted in-depth investigation focusing on the history of modern medicine, medical science, geopolitical conspiracy and the environment. Articles written prior to his move to Substack are found on his website Cry For The Earth
Related:
Virus “isolation” and “culturing” isn’t the biggest problem with virology…
Great article.
Also, nice to have all these articles / references in one place - nice work.
Good job!