Jeremy R. Hammond
I have already addressed the false claim that scientists never use controls when doing cell culture:
- ActiveChristine MasseyJeremy R. Hammond Firstly, we’re not talking about scientists, we’re talking about virologists. Big difference.
- Secondly, from the 2013 bat “coronavirus” study you cited, the samples were contaminated with Bovine Serum Albumin and toxic drugs right from the get-go, lol.RNA was extracted from the contaminated samples, not from purified particles.PCR test performed for a tiny sequence (alleged to be part of the much longer but nonexistent “genome”) with 40 cycles.A “consensus” sequence was decided on for each of the amplified regions lol.Fake-genome-sequencing was based on mashing together the results of God-knows how many PCR+ tests. No mention of controls.Fake isolation = more meaningless/useless PCR “tests” targeting the RdRP OR S gene, plus the contaminated clinical samples were mixed with monkey cells, more cow material (fetal calf serum) and “Double-dose triple antibiotics penicillin/streptomycin/amphotericin”, with breakdown of cells blamed on the imaginary “virus” and zero mention of controls.”Virus titre was determined in Vero E6 cells by cytopathic effect (CPE) counts” LOL.Ultracentrifugation with a sucrose cushion performed on the monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi culture supernatant (not a guarantee of purification), then imaging performed. Particles vary in size and appearance. These specific particles were NOT used in the fake isolation or fake sequencing steps.What a joke, Jeremy.”SamplingBats were trapped in their natural habitat as described previously5. Throat and faecal swab samples were collected in viral transport medium (VTM) composed of Hank’s balanced salt solution, pH 7.4, containing BSA (1%), amphotericin (15 μg ml−1), penicillin G (100 U ml−1) and streptomycin (50 μg ml−1). …Samples were transported to the laboratory and stored at −80 °C until use.”RNA extraction, PCR and sequencingRNA was extracted from 140 μl of swab or faecal samples … Amplification of the RdRP-gene fragment was performed as follows: 50 °C for 30 min, 94 °C for 2 min, followed by 40 cycles…PCR products were gel purified and cloned into pGEM-T Easy Vector (Promega). At least four independent clones were sequenced to obtain a consensus sequence for each of the amplified regions.Sequencing full-length genomesDegenerate coronavirus primers were designed based on all available SARS-CoV and bat SL-CoV sequences in GenBank and specific primers were designed from genome sequences generated from previous rounds of sequencing in this study (primer sequences will be provided upon request). All PCRs were conducted using the One-Step RT–PCR kit (Invitrogen). The 5′ and 3′ genomic ends were determined using the 5′ or 3′ RACE kit (Roche), respectively. PCR products were gel purified and sequenced directly or following cloning into pGEM-T Easy Vector (Promega). At least four independent clones were sequenced to obtain a consensus sequence for each of the amplified regions and each region was sequenced at least twice….Virus isolationVero E6 cell monolayers were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS. PCR-positive samples (in 200 μl buffer) were gradient centrifuged at 3,000–12,000g, and supernatant were diluted 1:10 in DMEM before being added to Vero E6 cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, inocula were removed and replaced with fresh DMEM with 2% FCS. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for 3 days and checked daily for cytopathic effect. Double-dose triple antibiotics penicillin/streptomycin/amphotericin (Gibco) were included in all tissue culture media (penicillin 200 IU ml−1, streptomycin 0.2 mg ml−1, amphotericin 0.5 μg ml−1). Three blind passages were carried out for each sample. After each passage, both the culture supernatant and cell pellet were examined for presence of virus by RT–PCR using primers targeting the RdRP or S gene.Virions in supernatant (10 ml) were collected and fixed using 0.1% formaldehyde for 4 h, then concentrated by ultracentrifugation through a 20% sucrose cushion (5 ml) at 80,000g for 90 min using a Ty90 rotor (Beckman). The pelleted viral particles were suspended in 100 μl PBS, stained with 2% phosphotungstic acid (pH 7.0) and examined using a Tecnai transmission electron microscope (FEI) at 200 kV….”
https://www.facebook.com/profile/1133803981/search/?q=jeremy
And why would CHD harm its credibility by propagating Christine Massey’s hoax FOI requests? Naturally, when you request documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods that scientists use to isolate viruses, you get no results. They are specifically worded to return no results and are therefore a hoax.
Naturally, Christine, when you request documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods that scientists use to isolate viruses, you will get no results. Your requests are specifically worded to return no results and are therefore a hoax.
it’s hard to understand your failure to understand why I say your FOI requests are hoax. It’s really simple to understand. Again, when you specifically request documentation of the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 using methods other than the methods used by scientists to isolate viruses, naturally, you get no results. Your requests are specifically worded to get no results and are therefore a hoax. (P.S. — isolation and purification are two different things.)
Hard to understand how you could still call the FOIs a hoax. I explained to you long ago that I spelled out exactly what I was looking for in the FOIs – separation of the alleged virus from everything else in a clinical sample. Nothing remotely unusual or unreasonable. And more than 2 years ago I stopped using the word “isolation” to avoid these waste-of-time red-herring arguments over the word “isolate”. And I specifically say purification “using standard laboratory methods for the purification of very small things“. You would know all this already if you had actually followed my work.Your critique seems to boil down to “they’re a hoax because I say they are.”Response to gaslighting about the “virus” isolation/purification FOI requestsPosted November 8, 2022https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-gaslighting…/
First of all, filing FOIs with the expectation of getting no records does not make the FOI a “hoax”.Your buddy RFK Jr didn’t think that Bill’s FOI to the NY state department of health – showing that they had no studies to show that masks are useful – was a hoax. In fact he highlighted it. Bill has the link. Do you call that one a “hoax” too?What about all the other similar FOIs that people around the world have filed to show that governments have “no records” to show that various “covid measures” were based on science? Are they hoaxes?What about my series of FOIs showing that various pro-water-fluoridation institutions have no studies to show that fluoride exposure during pregnancy is safe with respect to childhood IQ and ADHD symptoms (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/no-fluoride-pregnancy…/) – do you call those a “hoax” too, Jeremy? Your buddies at CHD didn’t, in fact they highlighted one of them on their site: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/…/washington-state…/My SARS-COV-2 FOI project began with the goals of 1) verifying that no records are held, where the alleged virus was separated from everything else in a clinical sample, and 2) obtaining evidence of such if in fact there are no such records. That is not a hoax. It’s a successful strategy.Secondly, once again you make this about the word “isolation”, when I’ve already explained to you repeatedly that I was always crystal clear in the FOIs (and in interviews, etc) as to what I was asking for, and I stopped using that word in my FOIs long ago, to avoid these idiotic, gas-lighting criticisms. (And lol “isolation” in virology is an exercise in anti-science, delusion and utter waste of resources. Interesting that you still imply it’s legit.)Response to gaslighting about the “virus” isolation/purification FOI requestshttps://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-gaslighting…/
Jeremy, you responded, “First of all, filing FOIs with the expectation of getting no records does not make the FOI a “hoax”.”That is a strawman argument. I did not say that filing FOIs with the expectation of getting no records makes your FOIs a hoax. Rather, I accurately observed that specifically wording your FOIs to obtain no results makes your FOIs a hoax.
Jeremy: “It’s not up to me whether or not there are results.”Naturally. Yet my observation remains true that you specifically worded your requests to return no results, and they are therefore a hoax.
Me: You wrote:”Your requests are specifically worded to get no results and are therefore a hoax.”It’s not up to me whether or not there are results. If there were legit papers there would be results. I’m simply showing that there aren’t any. That does not make them a hoax. It is a successful strategy, for mask studies, for fluoride studies, for “SARS-COV-2 purification” studies.
Christine MasseyJeremy R. Hammond Go around in circles much, Jeremy? The FOIs were worded to verify the relevant facts (legit records or no legit records) and you don’t like those facts being exposed, it would seem.
Mary disagrees with you strongly about the FOIs. Quote:
“Thanks for… all your excellent work in accessing information from various agencies.”
Mary also already admitted on video that she’s completely open to “no virus” (https://www.bitchute.com/video/MSjDMbgafwN0/ ).
Robert also already praised and encouraged a prominent person in the no-virus movement, in writing (as shown here: https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/why-is-robert-f-kennedy-jr-running).