f.d Pfizer-VP Mike Yeadon: "It is deliberate fraud, no virus has even been isolated"

If you’ve seen this before, apologies for duplication & please scroll past. If not, then this is very important for understanding the fakery that is virology.

Essentially, claims to have grown viruses in cell cultures and to have observed the toxic effects of these alleged viruses on the cells in culture, all rely on something that is so antithetical to the scientific method that, when it was first described to me, I simply didn’t believe them.

The missing piece? Control experiments. Virology papers featuring claims of “isolation” of a particular virus all involve adding a clinical sample that the investigators assumed contained said virus to cells in culture.

A few days later, the cells start to die off and cellular fragments appear in the liquid the cells are sitting in. Those fragments are visualised using electron microscopy and after printing out the “best” images, arrows are placed, directing the reader to the tiny structures, claiming them to be “a virus”.

But in no paper will you find cells cultured identically, to which the clinical sample is NOT added. Just to see what happens if no clinical sample is added. You’d be forgiven for thinking, as I did, that it’s an invalid experiment if you don’t include this comparison, called a negative control. And you’d be right. It is invalid. It’s not adherent even to the most basic rules of what is called “the scientific method”.

But such negative controls are ALWAYS MISSING in virology where cell cultures are used to declare “isolation of a virus”.

This private group have paid to run the negative controls. Many of them, in fact.

What happens next is crucial to understand. Well, the cells, handled exactly as described in the virological literature and as detailed by the central authority providing the reference cells (these are called “cell lines”) used in these kinds of study, behaved exactly the same as in the published virology studies. They begin to die. The cells begin to disintegrate. These fragments of cells, when imaged using electron microscopy, yield tiny structures looking identical to those claimed in the literature to be viruses.

In other words, the very processes which you *must* follow (according to the practises of this claimed scientific discipline) give exactly the same results (cell death & production of subcellular claimed virus-like objects) even if you add no clinical sample claimed to contain viruses.

It is plainly fraud. None of these papers should pass muster of “peer review”. I’ve published myself & been a peer reviewer of others’ submitted manuscripts. I assure you, nothing I ever submitted or reviewed would have been published, in the absence of relevant controls.

These are not optional. If you don’t run the proper controls, you cannot claim ANYTHING from the other experiments.

Obviously, I have not checked the methods section of every virological paper in which “isolation” is claimed, to confirm for myself that they NEVER include the necessary “no virus added” negative controls. I’m assured by those who have checked scores of such papers and negative controls are never included.

Based on that, all such claims to “virus isolation” are null and void & since it’s clearly intentional, it is deliberate fraud. No virus has even been “isolated”.

Please note that those who conceived of these studies did not do them themselves. They went to contract research labs (CROs), who conducted the cell culture studies as described & other specialised CROs performed the electron microscopy. So there’s no question of the investigators having “tilted the table” in any way.