Dr. Yeadon Comments on "The Positive Control" by The Virology Controls Studies Project

"In brief, it invalidates the basic method used in all of virology to “prove” the existence of a virus in a clinical sample."

Oct 26, 2024

Dr. Stephan Lanka also did a controlled study and came to the same results. The cell cultures die whether there is a sample added to the culture with an imaginary virus or not. The basis of virology is the cytopathic effect which happens also when no sample from a patient is added to the culture. The conclusion of virology that the cytopathic effect proves the presence of a virus is complete hogwash. -

Professor Anita Baxas,MD

One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:

By Dr. Mike Yeadon October 26, 2024

Well worth reading this. Sasha Latypova also recently interviewed Jamie Andrews about this work.

In brief, it invalidates the basic method used in all of virology to “prove” the existence of a virus in a clinical sample. That method is fraudulent because you get exactly the same results if you don’t add a clinical sample.

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.

Those changes to the cell culture medium are all that’s needed to initiate the death of those cells.

When the experimentalist claims, upon seeing cell death, “Here is proof that the clinical sample contains a virus”, it’s total rot. Not adding that clinical sample yields exactly the same results.

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.

These kinds of study provide no evidence whatsoever for the existence of viruses.

Best wishes,

Mike