The quick and easy answer is “no”, and we know this based on the fact that virologists do not have pure samples of their alleged “viruses” taken from their alleged locations (so-called “hosts”) to use as the independent variable in any fully controlled experiment whatsoever. See the proof of this in any “virus isolation” study, and in hundreds of FOI responses here and here.
That alone is enough to make clear that virology is not a science. But simple logic isn’t sufficient for some people. And so we can also come at this issue from a slightly different angle, by looking at the attempts made by virologists, if any, to control for any potentially confounding factors when claiming to have “isolated” and/or “sequenced” a “virus”.
Most “virus isolation and sequencing” papers make no mention of having used any controls whatsoever when culturing or “sequencing”. Some make vague, sketchy references to “mock infected cells” without providing details of exactly how they treated those cells (and rarely, if ever, are detailed results published).
Thus, attempts have been made via Freedom of Information filings to obtain further details. No institution thus far has been willing/able to provide the requested information. Also, colleagues have queried study authors and obtained numerous confessions that they did not implement even half-hearted controls.
Before we get to the FOIs and emails, note that Dr. Stefan Lanka commissioned experiments on cell cultures to which nothing from a patient was added. His results showed that the monkey-cell death (cytopathic effect, CPE) that is interpreted as “virus isolation” by virologists is in fact also brought on without the addition of any allegedly “infectious” material. He thus demonstrated the idiocy of one the foundational wild assumptions of virology. Video:
https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/cpe-english:f
More about Dr. Lanka’s control experiments:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8c9EVTnxsvip/
Secrets of Virology – “Control” Experiments – Dr. Sam Bailey
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Secrets-of-Virology-Control-Experiments:e
Below are the results of the FOIs and other queries.
(Note: “Isolation” is the misleading name given by virologists to the procedure they use to irrationally claim that a virus exists, that it caused cell damage, that they grew it and that they isolated it. You can find many great presentations/discussions on this topic here. Here is Michael S.‘s 59 second primer on the topic: How They Find Viruses.)
Freedom of Information responses and emails with study authors
August 2021:
Michael S. wrote to Zhengli Shi, the corresponding author of a “SARS-COV-2” study authored in China, published 03 February 2020, titled “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin”, by Zhou et al. He obtained important unpublished details/admissions about the experimental design and results, regarding the use of antibiotics and antifungals, trypsin and the number of wells exhibiting CPE (cytopathic effects).
Here are the emails:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2021-08-02_2021-08-9-email-transcript-Zhengli-Shi-Yang-DOI-10.1038-Redacted.pdf
Here is the protocol provided by Zhengli Shi:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/10.1038-zlshi-Protocol-for-virus-isolation.pdf
Here is Michael’s (archived) article about the situation:
Double the Antibiotics and Antifungals — by Michael Speth, Monky Science
A review of A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin
“Reading the glaring issue with the control groups only using 1% anti-anti while the experimental groups using 2% and then reducing to 1%…”
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Michaels-SS-article-Double-the-Antibiotics-and-Antifungals.pdf
March 29, 2022:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) responded to a FOIA filed by Michael S. in NZ a mere 8 months earlier.
Michael required unpublished details of the methodology employed by Jennifer Harcourt et al. in the infamous CDC “SARS-COV-2 isolation” publication. Specifically, he sought clarification as to whether any controls had been used during the faux-isolation procedure and if so the specific details.
The Methods section of the Harcourt paper made no reference to any control groups (since virology isn’t a science), however the Results section contains a reference to “mock infected cells” curiously without specifying anywhere in the paper exactly how the authors had treated those cells.
A postscript to Michael’s FOIA specified that all laboratory notes, supplemental records and “control group” details should be provided. The CDC responded with 37 unhelpful pages consisting of 1) emails between the so-called scientists (Harcourt, etc.) and 2) one of the earliest Chinese papers that claimed to have “isolated” the still-theoretical virus (Zhu et al.; see p 17 here for a summary).
This resulted in zero elucidation regarding the CDC’s “mock infected cells“.
[Note the excitement of the so-called scientists over their delusional belief that they had “isolated” the alleged deadly virus, on pages 19, 30 and 37. Not fear, disappointment, alarm, concern…. but excitement. Also the implicit admission that cytopathic effects (CPE, cell damage) is not proof of a virus.]
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CDC-Harcourt-mock-infected-MS-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
May 10, 2022:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) promptly responded to a FOIA filed by myself just 4.5 months earlier (sarcasm).
Michael and I had carefully tweaked his earlier FOIA, this time requiring all records that contain specific details of the so-called “virus isolation” and “whole genome sequencing” procedures employed by Harcourt et al.
The CDC responded with 36 unhelpful pages consisting of 1) some of the same emails that had been provided to Michael and 2) ..drum roll please… 24 pages of the letters A, C, T and G – comprising the utterly meaningless and strictly in silico “unclassified beta coronavirus culture isolate 2019-nCOV/USA-WA1-A12/2020, complete genome“:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CDC-Harcourt-mock-infected-CM-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
October 20/21, 2022:
The people at CDC were challenged to provide/cite scientific proof of the existence of the alleged SARS-COV-2 or the alleged HIV based on controlled experiments using purified particles. They could not, since none exists, so instead they provided irrelevant links regarding “HIV”, not even purporting to show controlled experiments. For “SARS-COV-2” they provided the same paragraphs that they’ve been giving people for the last year or so, with links to more irrelevant studies and webpages.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/CDC-SARS-COV-2-HIV-scientific-proof-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
December 8, 2022:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) confessed that they have no record wherein the alleged SARS-COV-2 was “sequenced” and negative controls were implemented by running same process with clinical samples taken from people not suspected of having the alleged “virus”.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CDC-no-neg-controls-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
March and May, 2022:
UK Health Security Agency denied Michael S.‘s request for further details of the fake “virus isolation” and “whole genome sequencing” methodologies employed by the authors (including Public Health England’s Maria Zambon) of a “rapid communication” published in Eurosurveillance entitled “Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, England, January to May 2020” (no controls whatsoever are mentioned in this study).
HSA cited a “national security” exemption, claiming that disclosure of the methods used to “amplify” an imaginary virus would pose a biosecurity hazard. They also said that releasing the details would “directly contravene an explicit request from the World Health Organization” not to, and implied that disclosure would cause identifiable patient information to be made public. Michael quite sanely rejected HSA’s bizarre excuses but HSA stuck to their story.
HSA also conflated fake “viral growth” in a monkey/cow/human mixture with “isolation”, finding genetic material with identifying an organism, and fabricating meaningless in silico (computer) “genomes” with refinement and confirmation. Because science!
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/UK-HSA-isolation-sequencing-methods-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
The story now continues….
Michael Speth vs the UK Information Commissioner’s Office
My court appeal for control information from the UK’s HSA
https://monkyscience.substack.com/p/michael-speth-vs-information-commissioner
February 1, 2022:
University of Toronto (Ontario, Canada) refused my FOI requirement for any records containing additional details re “controls” used in Banerjee et al.’s fraudulent, anti-science “SARS-COV-2 isolation” publication.
The people at the University of Toronto responsible for this decision chose to hide behind a section of the FOI legislation that protects research associated with an educational institution from public scrutiny…despite the obligation to disclose that is listed in section 11 (1):
“Despite any other provision of this Act, a head shall, as soon as practicable, disclose any record to the public or persons affected if the head has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is in the public interest to do so and that the record reveals a grave environmental, health or safety hazard to the public”:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/U-of-Toronto-controls-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
May/June 2022:
Canadian “SARS-COV-2” researchers Karen Mossman and Samira Mubareka, who published an unscientific claim of having “isolated” the imaginary virus in 2020, were asked questions regarding use of controls in their so-called “sequencing” methods; one month has passed without response. Meanwhile, some of their “SARS-COV-2 researching” colleagues, Dr. Andrew McArthur of McMaster University and Christopher Kandel MD at UHN Toronto General Hospital confessed that they neglected to implement the controls that would have had the potential to make obvious the wild assumptions that are the norm in virology.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Mubareka-Mossman-etc-no-valid-controls-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
May 23, 2022:
People acting for New Zealand‘s crown research corporation, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), insist that Michael S. pay $2964 for important details regarding the so-called “SARS-COV-2 genome sequencing” that were omitted from the publication “Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 during Border Quarantine and Air Travel, New Zealand (Aotearoa)” (Eichler et al.). They claim that providing the details would require 40 hours of work by a senior scientist, including 6 hours to locate the “SARS-COV-2 sequences” that the researchers submitted to GISAID.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ESR-sequencing-details-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
May 31, 2022:
Mayhaka Mendis, acting as Registrar for University of Otago in New Zealand, is calling Michael S.’s FOI for the so-called “whole genome SARS-COV-2” sequences that were submitted to GISAID by Professor Quiñones-Mateu “vexatious”.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/NZ-U-of-Otago-refuses-genome-FOI-PACKAGE.pdf
June 22, 2022:
Kelsey Kennard acting in the Office of the Registrar at New Zealand’s University of Otago confessed to Michael S. that the study titled “Characterization of the First SARS-CoV-2 Isolates from Aotearoa New Zealand as Part of a Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic” by “virologist” Miguel Quiñones-Mateu is merely a descriptive paper with no hypothesis and nothing to prove or disprove… in other words Miguel employed no scientific method and his paper cannot accurately be called “scientific”.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-06-22-University-of-Otago-Scientific-Method-Response-Redacted-Complete.pdf
August 3, 2022:
Kelsey Kennard acting in the Office of the Registrar at New Zealand’s University of Otago insisted to Michael S. that the study titled “Characterization of the First SARS-CoV-2 Isolates from Aotearoa New Zealand as Part of a Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic” by “virologist” Miguel Quiñones-Mateu (which Kelsey had already confessed is merely a descriptive study with no hypothesis and nothing to prove or disprove, as shown above) proves the existence of “SARS-COV-2” in New Zealand:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/NZ-U-of-Otago-no-scientific-proof-existence-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
May 27, 2022:
Guillaume Croville, IHAP Virology Laboratory, National Veterinary School of Toulouse (UMR ENVT-INRAE) posted online some details of the methodology used to obtain a so-called
First French draft genome sequence of Monkeypox virus, May 2022.
Below is an implausible excerpt from the implausible claim:
“Viral DNA was extracted from a swab sample... The sequencing run produced 5 Gb of data and a total of 12 918 reads out of 7,9M (0,16%) were mapped to a closely related reference genome (MT903343 62), with a mean sequencing depth of 38x. A consensus sequence of 196 923 bp MPXV_FRA_2022_TLS67 was generated using iVar software…”
One cannot extract DNA that is specifically “viral” in origin from a swab! And no “virus” has ever been shown to exist, therefore no DNA or RNA has ever been shown to be “viral” in origin. Basic logic is always ignored in virology.
Yet according to Guillaume it’s possible to selectively extract “viral” DNA from a swab sample. And for some reason only .16% of that so-called “viral” DNA mapped onto an earlier so-called reference “genome” (for a “virus” never found in and purified from any bodily fluid/tissue, by anyone, anywhere, ever). And from 12, 918 reads, a consensus “genome” was fabricated.
So scientific!
One of my colleagues (who prefers to remain anonymous) contacted Guillaume with a couple of questions, and received a rather incredible confession. Excerpts are shown below.
Full correspondence:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Guillaume-Croville-ENVT-France-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
July 2022:
Researcher Robbert Boudewijns, Laboratory of Virology and Chemotherapy, Rega Inst. for Medical Research, University of Leuven, Belgium confessed to another researcher that he failed to perform adequate negative controls when creating his published, so-called “SARS-COV-2 genome”, and relied on unscientific assumptions.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Belgium-controls_2022-12-08_15-16-33.jpg
Thank you to our “Control Experiment” friends on Telegram, at https://t.me/control_experiment, for passing this on. See more posts in German at https://t.me/Corona_Fakten.
March 2022:
Researcher Ilie Marius Chu in Nice, France confessed to a molecular biologist in Norway that they failed to perform negative controls (by carrying out the same steps using PCR-negative clinical samples) when creating the so-called “SARS-COV-2 genome” that they published.
Ilie also confessed that they later did carry out such controls, and obtained some “weak positive” results! And that they didn’t publish those results!
October 2022:
Regarding the research of Marion Koopmans, Virologist of MC Erasmus, Netherlands, 3 guesses as to what our “Control Experiment” friends uncovered:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Marion-Koopmans-Netherlands-controls-PACKAGE.pdf:
Check out their work on Telegram: https://t.me/control_experiment
See more posts in German at https://t.me/Corona_Fakten.
June/July 2022:
Marcus Panning, Virologist of Freiburg, Germany confessed to another researcher that he finds the idea of implementing negative controls (when creating a so-called “SARS-COV-2 genome”) “odd” and thus didn’t bother.
Thank you to our “Control Experiment” friends on Telegram, for passing this on https://t.me/control_experiment/308?singleSee more posts in German at https://t.me/Corona_Fakten
Back up copy:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Marcus-Panning-Freiburg-Germany-controls-PACKAGE.pdf
January 27, 2022:
Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – CSIRO (“Australia’s national science research agency”) have also confirmed they have no record containing details of any “controls” used in anti-scientific so-called “virus isolation” cell culture procedures or “whole genome sequencing” procedures:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022-01-27-CSIRO-SARS-COV-2-Controls-redacted.pdf)
February 2022:
So-called scientists at Australia’s Doherty Institute confessed to Marvin Haberland (via Eugene Toh, acting as Information Regulation Officer, University of Melbourne) that they neglected to use adequate controls when “sequencing”/assembling their in silico “SARS-COV-2 genome”, and thus admitted that their result is anti-scientific:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Doherty-Inst-no-controls-Marvin-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
Marvin vs Virology: COVID Taken To Court – with Dr. Sam Bailey
German engineer Marvin Haberland has worked out a way to get a public admission that SARS-CoV-2 has not been shown to exist. When Marvin broke “corona” legislation, the German authorities unwittingly took the bait. If they want to convict him, they will have to justify the fraudulent nature of virology in a public court. The virologists better come up with some decent excuses fast…
Dr. Tom Cowan and Marvin Haberland
“I consider today’s podcasts one of the most important ones I’ve done. My guest is a young German man, Marvin Haberland, and our conversation revolves around his upcoming court case in Germany, as well as the foundations of virology.”
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/podcasts/56-marvin-haberland
More on this topic can be found on Telegram, in German at:
https://t.me/Corona_Fakten
October 12, 2022:
A scientist wrote to the people at RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) in the Netherlands, and asked whether the “scientists” there had extracted RNA from cell culture supernatant that was treated the same way as the faux-infected cells, and tried to assemble their reads into a so-called “SARS-COV-2 genome” as a negative control.
Someone named Nena wrote back and told the scientist to check the RIVM website and the international literature… which is understandable, because let’s face it – who wants to confess that a negative control wasn’t used? Not that controls could turn a fiction into reality, anyways!
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/RIVM-1.pdf
ChatGPT fails in every way
March 2023:
ChatGPT failed to cite even 1 virology paper correctly for Ron Bublitz despite many attempts, and couldn’t point to any record of any alleged virus being purified from bodily fluid/tissue, let alone valid controlled experiments showing anything fitting the definition of a “virus”:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/chatgpt-cant-cite-a-single-paper-correctly-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
DFG / German Research Foundation calls virology’s made-up “genomes” and failure to implement even some common-sense negative controls a “technical mistake” not worthy of investigation
DFG aka the German Research Foundation is “the self-governing organization of science in Germany. It serves science and promotes research of the highest quality in all its forms and disciplines at universities and other research institutions“.
And so, in good faith and over a period of many months, Igson Negrin explained to Dr. Philip Ridder of the Unit for Scientific Integrity, DFG that implementation of some basic negative controls – that virologists have consistently failed to carry out – could make it obvious that the so-called “SARS-COV-2 genomes” cooked up by virologists do not exist in physical reality.
Regardless, Dr. Ridder insisted that making up meaningless in silico “virus genomes” is not a big deal, is not an example of scientific misconduct and does not represent a sufficient falsification or fabrication of data, and thus no investigation would be conducted.
June 2022 – January 2023 emails between Igson Negrin and Dr. Philip Ridder:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/DGF-Denmark-Igson-Negrin-PACKAGE.pdf
Ralf Dürrwald, Head of the National Reference Center (NRZ) for influenza viruses, RKI, Germany
March 2022:
Igson Negrin wrote to Ralf Dürrwald, who acts as head of the National Reference Center (NRZ) for influenza viruses, at the Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin, Germany. The conversation went something like this:
Igson: Did you implement control experiments in this “swine influenza virus” “Rapid communication” that lacks a valid independent variable and was published in the infamous Eurosurveillance?
Ralf: Of course, both positive and negative controls. Our methods are validated.
Igson: Please send me documentation of the control experiments.
Ralf: What control experiments?
Igson: You don’t seem to be following the guidelines for good scientific practice published by RKI or DFG.
Ralf: Here are some tweets from someone who doesn’t like you.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Ralf-Durrwald-Nat-Ref-Center-for-influenza-viruses-RKI-Germany.pdf
December 2022:
Joshua Quick, creator of widely used ARTIC “sequencing” protocol admitted he hasn’t implemented necessary controls (let alone had an actual “virus” to “sequence”)
Joshua acts as molecular biologist at the School of Biosciences, Institute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham. He developed a “sequencing” method widely used for “Zika”, “Ebola”, “SARS-CoV-2” and other imaginary “viruses”: the open-source ARTIC protocol / primers scheme for amplicon-based “whole genome sequencing”… funded by the notorious Wellcome Trust (https://artic.network/ncov-2019).
For “SARS-COV-2”, Joshua created primers based on Fan Wu et al.’s infamous, meaningless in silico (computer) creation (“reference genome Wuhan-Hu-1”). Joshua’s protocol has not and cannot be validated, since “SARS-COV-2” (including “its” alleged genome) has never been found in anyone or shown to exist in physical reality.
A colleague wrote to Joshua and asked him why it isn’t possible to reproduce the longest (meaningless) contig that was reported by Wu et al. Joshua responded that he thought the 3rd version – yes, there are versions – of the Wuhan-Hu-1 “genome” was an improvement over the earlier versions. He assumed there had been a mis-assembly “or something” in the first version. But he was certain that the “new and improved” version is correct based on it “matching” other made-up “genomes” and his success with PCR tests that don’t test for a virus or a full length genome.
Joshua also indicated that he doesn’t bother to use necessary controls to rule out the possibility that the “genomes” resulting from his protocol could also be created without the presence of any allegedly “infected” material (i.e. could be made from “sequences” found in healthy human and animal tissue):
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Joshua-Quick-re-Arctic-WGS-controls.pdf
More investigations like this one can be found at NEXT LEVEL on Telegram:
https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal
May 2023: W.H.O. scientist confirms the lack of simple negative controls used in the fake-“sequencing” of imaginary viruses
From our friends at NEXT LEVEL, auto-translation:
“We asked the WHO directly about the necessary negative controls in genome sequencing
Dr Lorenzo Subisi:
1. Bachelors in Chemistry
2. Masters in Biochemistry and Masters in Epidemiology
3. PhD in Molecular Virology
❗️ The WHO scientist confirms: negative control in genome sequencing is an important point. But he is not aware of any study . ❗️
The next confirmation hammer
While the expert Subissi describes in his own publication “An early warning system for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants” that amplicon-based sequencing methods are prone to sequence errors and poor sequence qualities, he admits that the negative controls are an important point, but he is not aware of a single publication that carried them out!
💡Note:
A negative control represents a standard experimental control. An absolute standard in science. Even the WHO confirms the lack of the simplest basic controls.
👉 WHO correspondence:
https://t.me/NextLevelBackup/13 “
backed up here:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/WHO-team-geschwarzt-Lorenzo-Subissi.pdf
More investigations like this one can be found at NEXT LEVEL on Telegram:
https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal (this link is not broken)
March 2023: University of Glasgow’s “Research Integrity team” turns a blind eye to research misconduct / fabrication of fake, meaningless “SARS-COV-2 genome”
Without getting into the fact that there isn’t even a “SARS-COV-2” for anyone to “sequence”… a colleague contacted the “Research Integrity team” at University of Glasgow with “well-founded suspicions of research misconduct“; specifically:
– the failure of Emma Thomson (a woman who sometimes acts as “Professor”) and David Robertson (a man who sometimes acts as “Professor”) to document necessary controls in relation to their fake, assembled/aligned in silico (computer) “SARS-COV-2 genome”, and,
– the manipulated and un-replicable nature of MN908947 – which is the bogus, also-made-up (not discovered) “SARS-COV-2 reference genome” to which Emma and David and countless other researchers around the world aligned their own fake-genomes.
(MN908947 is the in silico (computer) creation of Wu et al.; see Nature | Vol 579 | 12 March 2020 for fabrication details.)
But hey, “no big deal” declared the man Martin Hendry who sometimes acts as Professor Martin Hendry, Clerk of Senate and Vice Principal, Named Person for Misconduct Allegations. The potentially (obviously, really) fraudulent nature of MN908947 isn’t the university’s problem.
“We do not expect our scientists to check if an assembly is correct” because it is “simply being used as a scaffold for further re-sequencing experiments“.
And in Martin’s mind the lack of necessary controls was too trivial to even comment on:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/University-of-Glascow-PACKAGE-re-controls-manipulation.pdf
October 2022:
Another from our friends at NEXT LEVEL, auto-translated:
“The Max von Pettenkofer Institute also confirms: Not a single check carried out ❗️
While critics keep claiming that these experimental controls exist, NOBODY can show these logical standard experimental controls❗️
PD dr re. of course Hanna Mari Baldauf:
1. Senior Researcher at the Max von Pettenkofer Institute & Gene Center, Virology, LMU Munich
2. Bachelor of Science (BSc (Hons)) in Biotechnology
3. Master of Science (MSc) in Biomedicine
4. Doctor of Virology
5. Group leader of young virologists (jGfV)
NEXLT LEVEL Questions:
1. Purification using density gradient centrifugation?
2. Trying to construct a genome from a negative control (cell culture treated in the same way)?
3. Attempting genome construction with a PCR negative sample?
🗣 PD Dr. re. of course Hanna Mari Baldauf:
“We haven’t tried anything you asked for.”
👉 For correspondence
💬 Telegram contact person:
@WissenNeuGedacht
👉 Subscribe to channel
t.me/NextLevelOriginal/217“
The correspondence is backed-up here:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Max-von-Pettenkofer-Institut_Geschwarzt.pdf
January 13, 2023:
Oregon Health Authority refused disclosure of all unpublished records re 21 queries re imaginary “SARS-COV-2”
A colleague sought records containing info about the “Oregon Health Authority’s” purported investigation into the imaginary “virus”, from 21 different angles; Jeanne Windham, a woman acting as Public Records and Internal Litigation Process Coordinator, insisted that all “information obtained by Oregon Health Authority or a local public health administrator in the course of a reportable disease or disease outbreak investigation… is confidential under state law“… which sounds just a tad fishy, especially considering that convid “cases” are fraudulently classified as such based on tests that don’t test for a virus (as David Icke calls them) and which cannot detect any disease, reportable or otherwise, and that the alleged reportable coronavirus disease has – along with “the virus” – never been shown to exist;
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Oregon-Health-Authority-many-issues-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
