Thank you, Jeff, for focusing on Jamie's misleading content. I noticed he has a Substack (controlstudies.substack.com). It has only one post, presumably on scientific Controls. I think he was trying for a world record on the most misspelled words in a single post. It's all very sloppy. Along the way he dismisses atomic theory and genetics as pseudoscience. The post concludes with a hilarious misunderstanding of a short report describing how a rapid antigen test won't give reliable results if you don't follow instructions.
Thanks, Marty. I hadn't bothered to view his post because he had me blocked on Substack, but I will try to look. Your point about him dismissing genetics and atoms fits perfectly with the dismissive attitude prevalent in this group.
I've been learning about virology laboratory procedures by reading some of the documents Jamie Andrews references. It doesn't appear he reads much or he would have a better understanding of the subject. For example, I've seen him post an excerpt from this document a number of times: "Cytopathic Effects of Viruses Protocols" from the American Society for Microbiology. He highlights this paragraph:
"The rate of CPE appearance is also a characteristic that can be used to help identify viruses. In general the rule of thumb is that a virus is considered slow if CPE appears after 4 to 5 days in cultures inoculated at low MOI, and rapid if CPE appears after 1 to 2 days in cultures inoculated at low MOI. It is important to note that at a high MOI all CPE can occur rapidly. So all decisions about rate of CPE appearance should be based on the lowest MOI that produces CPE."
Jamie says "Here is the American Society of [sic] Microbiology stating that if ANY appearance of CPE is in the culture before day 5, you have a "virus" in the culture."
But it doesn't state that. Not even close!
It does state, elsewhere in the same document:
"Recognizing CPE and using it as a diagnostic tool requires much experience in examining both stained and unstained cultures of many cell types."
"The best knowledge of viral CPE comes from experience. And control uninfected cells should always be observed to distinguish normal cell changes that occur as cells age from cytopathic effect."
I guess Jamie didn't read that part. It makes me wonder how an automated machine (Countess) can take the place of an experienced microbiologist when examining cell cultures for CPE.
I think Jamie said they waited around nine days, or something similar. In other words, they starved the cells and asked the CRO, whom they were paying, to point out structures that resemble certain viruses, but without any chemical analysis. The CRO responded, "Sure, here is a structure that looks similar to measles," and then marked it. Jamie and his team then claimed, "Look! Virology is a fraud because we show that cells produce structures even when they aren't inoculated!" However, these structures are not viruses and do not even resemble viruses in almost all cases. They also do not match the circumstantial evidence of viruses, as there are usually many viruses in the micrograph due to their high replication by cells. Additionally, no chemical analysis was performed. They have nothing. They are looking at apoptotic bodies and debris.
I noticed Jamie Andrews has a new Substack post, Decentralized Science, that might be considered a sort of manifesto for his Science 2.0. I haven't laughed so much in a long time. Jamie has this to say about those of us who wear white coats at work: "Personally I look at the people in White Coats as no much more than Medieval Priests that use positions of authority to make wild claims, thinly veiled threats, drum up PR scare stories, all to further Tax the common Man of their hard earned living."
Jamie admits he has no experience in virology and has never set foot in a microbiology laboratory but he has picked up understanding of "the area and terminology and protocols". I often recall a favorite quote from physicist Richard Feynman: "I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."
"They have a large Overton window for the methodology to alter the experiment in ways of their choosing. Should the results of the experiment NOT look like the desired results, they alter their methodology and go again, until those initial imagined results are achieved."
This guy's argument is filled with paranoid schizo talk without evidence, logical or otherwise. At least make a reasoned case for your claims instead of blurting out baseless assertions.
He mixes some general truths with a host of falsehoods, erroneously conflating pharmacology with the entirety of science. He accuses "The Science" of only publishing the results they want. You mean like Jamie Andrew and his friends, who claim their 'control studies' are 'the end of virology' without documenting their methodology? Or like others in this group who pretend to be legitimate but aren't?
Yes, you guessed it, they're far worse than anything or anyone in The Science could ever be. They're highly biased, unable to write in plain English or document their results, and sound like someone who barely passed grade school writing and English classes. They make extraordinarily childish leaps in logic to twist their biases into their own version of reality.
"This is why I have developed a new way of conducting Science, a Decentralized Science, Crowdsourced, Crowdfunded, FOR the people, BY the people."
More blowhard talk. All this crowdfunding and sourcing would only result in suboptimal, invalid control studies that fabricate results to garner more donations.
"If someone starts with the crowdfunded idea to develop a drug to combat an imaginary virus. If that drug is dangerous and kills someone, the developers of the drug are personally liable and will go bankrupt from lawsuits against them."
Not smart. People can die from drinking too much water—somewhere, someplace. His 'perfect' scenario is untenable and fantastical. Nothing is 100% safe or can be made 100% safe, rendering his claim a fantasy detached from reality, all whilst labeling science as fraudulent for the very pitfalls his own ideas would face and succumb to.
The problem is that he doesn't even know the terms, let alone the science that underlies them. He could learn a great deal without ever stepping foot into a lab, but he has failed to listen to those who have, to learn from them, and to understand the science they use. His pompous attitude is very telling.
This 'I know more than people who research the evidence, carry out the experiments, or experience and test their hypotheses.' mentality is very prevalent in the 'truth movement' as a whole. You've seen it many times by people right here in my comment sections who will outright deny evidence to suit their own cognitive dissonance.
Free market science would be an unmitigated disaster. It would be no different than something like free market 'law and order', where the court of law is ruled by popular vote instead of strict laws and procedures. It would be nothing less than a popularity contest carried out by extremely biased mouth-breathers who are not interested in the veracity of their results.
For example, imagine a slew of anti-science Trump supporters overseeing studies on stem cells—yeah, that wouldn't go well.
Thank you, Jeff, for the review of Jamie's Substack post. I am largely in agreement with the points you make. There are some problems with peer review and scientific publications but otherwise Jamie's understanding of current "Science" is woefully lacking.
I'm particularly appalled by his "Overton Window" passage. He says he hired CROs who told him they routinely do whatever it takes to ensure the client gets the results they want. That alone means any results he has obtained from them are worthless. It also means he can never publish the identity of any of the CROs or individual scientists because he would expose them as unethical frauds. That would be VERY bad for business.
Test it until it passes or conforms to expectations is the farthest thing from ethical pharmaceutical laboratory practices. Extraordinary measures are taken to ensure reliable measurements and protect data integrity. All quality control labs have procedures for investigation of out-of-specification or out-of-trend results. This is taken very seriously and the records of those investigations are nearly always requested during a regulatory audit. FDA warning letters are publicly available and no company wants to be found in that hall of shame.
It's really sad to see there are well-meaning but gullible individuals who think Jamie is performing a valuable service.
I feel the same about those lines. At first, he alleges that researchers and scientists are purposefully engaging in fraudulent acts, only to later assert that he doesn't believe it's intentional, thereby contradicting himself.
Years ago, I may have shared a similar perspective, but as I expanded my understanding, I realized my view was narrow and ultimately incorrect. Science does not function in the limited manner Jamie portrays; it comprises diverse individuals worldwide who adhere to the scientific method.
It is not the outright fraudulent endeavor Jamie depicts, even though science and its individual branches are not completely flawless in every way. No-Virus exploits minor issues in science, or the history of scientific discovery, to justify their sweeping rejection of the entirety of science, which is why they make such sweeping claims about virology. They assert that virology is fraudulent in the same way. I'm surprised they haven't yet claimed that micrographs are fake.
Additionally, when you consider that these same people have embraced other illogical conspiracy theories without any factual or logical basis, before their denial of viruses came to be, the picture becomes clearer. They are simply extending their initial unfounded beliefs and applying that same system of thinking to microbiology and science as a whole.
Jamie Andrews posted on Twitter on July 17 concerning some comments in a "The Real Truther" Twitter space from July 16 where Thomas Baldwin (@sense_strand) criticized Jamie's cell culture experiments. Instead of posting an excerpt from his own protocol Jamie posted a portion of a Sigma Aldrich product information document titled "HEK 293 Cell Growth and Virus Production in EX-CELL 293 Serum-Free Medium". He highlighted the following section:
"Titrations were performed in 96-well microtiter plates as follows: HEK 293 cells were seeded in DMEM with 6 mM L-glutamine and 5% FBS at 1 x 10^4 cells/100 μL/well. Duplicate serial dilutions (10^-1 to 10^-11) of each lysate were made in DMEM with 2% FBS and 2 mM L-glutamine, and 100 μL was added to each well. Plates were incubated at 37 C, 10% CO2 for 10 days, then observed on an inverted microscope for cytopathic effect (CPE). "
This is for TCID50 (Tissue Culture Infectious Dose) titration. I think this procedure is distinct from the cell culture experiments Jamie is supposed to be conducting.
Right, we've all been keeping up with it, and so far, he hasn't released anything legitimate. This week on Twitter, Thomas prodded him further for details of his methods on Twitter, but he just said, "Wait until they're released.", and continued to call Thomas a liar. During a Real Truther space last Tuesday night, Thomas challenged a couple of No-Virus members about Jamie's experiments.
It was clearly exposed that the experiments violated protocols and procedures, making the entire experiment illegitimate. Jamie refuses to reveal the name of the CRO or the methods he used. It was also uncovered during the space that Jamie actually instructed the CRO to simply find things that LOOK similar to viruses. However, none of the findings even look similar to viruses, and no nucleic acid testing was done to confirm their presence.
During the Real Truther Space, Justin Leslie was in the unenviable position of defending Jamie's work. For someone with a decent science background he wasn't able to support or refute anything beyond repeating the "viruses have never been isolated or purified" refrain. Thomas Baldwin demolished him.
Justin Leslie is best known for doing the Project Veritas interviews with Jordon Trishton Walker. He likes to be seen as a Pfizer Whistleblower but he only worked a short time as a lab grunt for Pfizer and ended up with very little to whistle about.
Jamie was a guest on Justin's podcast a few days ago. Toward the end of the podcast Jamie said "We want to hear what people have to say on all sides." I've never seen him react positively to constructive criticism. Anyone who doesn't praise his project receives scorn and derision. I laughed out loud when Jamie said "I want to be a thought leader in order to push for Science 2.0."
Yes, that's all nonsense by Jamie. I appreciate your insights and the fact that you're keeping me informed about the parts I may have missed. Justin Leslie was unable to answer any questions, and another person whose name I didn't catch stated, "To isolate a virus, you just look at it..." ...what? These statements completely undermined their claims and, consequently, Jamie's supposed experiments.
Jamie has blocked me on all platforms simply for presenting the facts in a polite manner. I have been called a liar by Jamie at least 20 times now, among other things. He has also lashed out and attacked Thomas and others who asked questions, labeling them as liars and calling them "Pieces of shite." It's laughable anyone would believe Jamie when he claims he wants to be a thought leader. I haven't seen someone with such toxic behavior in a long time.
To make matters worse, many of their followers have infiltrated my Substack. Some even pay to subscribe. They pretend to be honest subscribers and attempt to dissuade me from questioning any of these people. They push the narrative that if I challenge them, it reflects poorly on me. But who are these people to dictate how I should run my own channel?
Many of these same people are incapable of engaging in any form of debate or discussion and would not stick their neck out for anything like I do.
You witnessed this in my last article, where people try to persuade me from expressing my own viewpoint based on evidence. Suddenly, asking for evidence is seen as a negative trait. Suddenly, defending oneself and one's positions is a no-no. But where is the backlash from Jamie acting like a petulant child toward others for simply challenging his claims?
It's as simple as this: Researchers and scientists must maintain checks and balances to prevent others from being misled. If it weren't for myself and others who put in the hard work to educate people about the truth in these matters, there would be no alternative to counter the falsehoods propagated by Jamie and others. And I'm beyond tired of being told that I should not be doing such things on my own page.
Ok, he's the one who said, "To isolate it, you just look at it."—claiming you can't use natural chemical reactions to purify and isolate something. Very telling statement.
If Jamie Andrews and team wanted to be taken seriously they should have published their experimental protocols PRIOR to beginning the work. Then, as the work proceeded, any planned or accidental deviations from the protocols should have been documented. They're crowing about "the foundations of virology are now proven to be totally fraudulent" (Alec Zeck) when they haven't actually proven anything other than their incompetence. They wasted a lot of money and they're asking for donations of a lot more money.
Yes, I'm done with these people. They're as extreme as the staunch pro-vaccine advocates who push vaccines regardless of the evidence. It's just two sides of the same coin. Good example: https://x.com/thereal_truther/status/1721933752442732901. And Kirsch has his own problems with his narrative as well about viruses, but nothing like the other side.
There is no balance whatsoever in the "truth community". It's either extreme left, or extreme right, and little to no balance. When I come along, I am downvoted, dogpiled, and belittled. Yet, they don't have the slightest clue what I know or what I am imparting.
The formula for Earth curvature drop is 8 in per mile squared.
The Earth curve calculator and reality all match up.
Imagine we are in the middle of Pacific. Standing on a 3000 ft platform The horizon would be 67 miles away. A canoe 700 mi away would be around 50 miles below the physical horizon if it existed.
*** If you draw a straight line from that 3,000 foot platform to the horizon and across the canoe's position, the canoe would be 50 miles below that line. If we elevated that canoe 3 MI in the air it would now be 47 MI below that line ***
It's spherical geometry.
If we put a 15,000 ft tall volcano on that spot in the ocean, the base would be around 50 MI below the horizon. The top of that cube would be around 47 MI below the horizon. It would also be slightly tilting away on a hypothetical sphere.
All the elevations on Earth are measured above sea level so they wrap around the hypothetical sphere.
This means that the mountain in Wales would be like the 3000 ft viewing platform in the ocean, and Mont Blanc would be like the 15, 000 ft volcano in the ocean. Therefore Mont Blanc would be around 47 miles below line of sight.
You know how a full-on paid celebrity globe Earth shill like YouTube's "Professor Dave" deals with these line of sight globe killers? He just says that they're fake photos and videos because that's all he has.
This is from a video by youtuber JTolanMedia1, an FE researcher, who is a French engineer who works for an American company. He uses an infrared filter that he made for his video cameras.
He took video from an airplane flying on a domestic flight in California so I'll assume around 33,000 ft in altitude and he's 170 miles from Tahoe.
No, it doesn't help because everything you wrote is false.
That video is a fraud. The mountains claimed to be Monte Blanc and other nearby mountains are merely clouds on the horizon. Moreover, most of the clouds are located in the wrong spots relative to the mountain's actual locations.
Additionally, the claims you are making are inconsequential because there are thousands of other proofs that prove Earth is a sphere; the totality of circumstances.
I've also looked at flat earth research for 9 yrs and all evidence supports the plane. Also people such as Kaufman and Zeck have spoken in favor of the flat earth model. BTW Jeff, you are a flatearther also. You should research and deprogram yourself from the globe earth psyop.
That video is a fraud. The mountains claimed to be Monte Blanc and other nearby mountains are merely clouds on the horizon. Moreover, most of the clouds are located in the wrong spots relative to the mountain's actual locations.
Are you saying that people exhale "viruses" that are making them sick which are inhaled by another person to potentially give that person the symptoms of the exhaler?
Thank you, Jeff, for focusing on Jamie's misleading content. I noticed he has a Substack (controlstudies.substack.com). It has only one post, presumably on scientific Controls. I think he was trying for a world record on the most misspelled words in a single post. It's all very sloppy. Along the way he dismisses atomic theory and genetics as pseudoscience. The post concludes with a hilarious misunderstanding of a short report describing how a rapid antigen test won't give reliable results if you don't follow instructions.
Thanks, Marty. I hadn't bothered to view his post because he had me blocked on Substack, but I will try to look. Your point about him dismissing genetics and atoms fits perfectly with the dismissive attitude prevalent in this group.
I've been learning about virology laboratory procedures by reading some of the documents Jamie Andrews references. It doesn't appear he reads much or he would have a better understanding of the subject. For example, I've seen him post an excerpt from this document a number of times: "Cytopathic Effects of Viruses Protocols" from the American Society for Microbiology. He highlights this paragraph:
"The rate of CPE appearance is also a characteristic that can be used to help identify viruses. In general the rule of thumb is that a virus is considered slow if CPE appears after 4 to 5 days in cultures inoculated at low MOI, and rapid if CPE appears after 1 to 2 days in cultures inoculated at low MOI. It is important to note that at a high MOI all CPE can occur rapidly. So all decisions about rate of CPE appearance should be based on the lowest MOI that produces CPE."
Jamie says "Here is the American Society of [sic] Microbiology stating that if ANY appearance of CPE is in the culture before day 5, you have a "virus" in the culture."
But it doesn't state that. Not even close!
It does state, elsewhere in the same document:
"Recognizing CPE and using it as a diagnostic tool requires much experience in examining both stained and unstained cultures of many cell types."
"The best knowledge of viral CPE comes from experience. And control uninfected cells should always be observed to distinguish normal cell changes that occur as cells age from cytopathic effect."
I guess Jamie didn't read that part. It makes me wonder how an automated machine (Countess) can take the place of an experienced microbiologist when examining cell cultures for CPE.
I think Jamie said they waited around nine days, or something similar. In other words, they starved the cells and asked the CRO, whom they were paying, to point out structures that resemble certain viruses, but without any chemical analysis. The CRO responded, "Sure, here is a structure that looks similar to measles," and then marked it. Jamie and his team then claimed, "Look! Virology is a fraud because we show that cells produce structures even when they aren't inoculated!" However, these structures are not viruses and do not even resemble viruses in almost all cases. They also do not match the circumstantial evidence of viruses, as there are usually many viruses in the micrograph due to their high replication by cells. Additionally, no chemical analysis was performed. They have nothing. They are looking at apoptotic bodies and debris.
I noticed Jamie Andrews has a new Substack post, Decentralized Science, that might be considered a sort of manifesto for his Science 2.0. I haven't laughed so much in a long time. Jamie has this to say about those of us who wear white coats at work: "Personally I look at the people in White Coats as no much more than Medieval Priests that use positions of authority to make wild claims, thinly veiled threats, drum up PR scare stories, all to further Tax the common Man of their hard earned living."
Jamie admits he has no experience in virology and has never set foot in a microbiology laboratory but he has picked up understanding of "the area and terminology and protocols". I often recall a favorite quote from physicist Richard Feynman: "I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something."
"They have a large Overton window for the methodology to alter the experiment in ways of their choosing. Should the results of the experiment NOT look like the desired results, they alter their methodology and go again, until those initial imagined results are achieved."
This guy's argument is filled with paranoid schizo talk without evidence, logical or otherwise. At least make a reasoned case for your claims instead of blurting out baseless assertions.
He mixes some general truths with a host of falsehoods, erroneously conflating pharmacology with the entirety of science. He accuses "The Science" of only publishing the results they want. You mean like Jamie Andrew and his friends, who claim their 'control studies' are 'the end of virology' without documenting their methodology? Or like others in this group who pretend to be legitimate but aren't?
Yes, you guessed it, they're far worse than anything or anyone in The Science could ever be. They're highly biased, unable to write in plain English or document their results, and sound like someone who barely passed grade school writing and English classes. They make extraordinarily childish leaps in logic to twist their biases into their own version of reality.
"This is why I have developed a new way of conducting Science, a Decentralized Science, Crowdsourced, Crowdfunded, FOR the people, BY the people."
More blowhard talk. All this crowdfunding and sourcing would only result in suboptimal, invalid control studies that fabricate results to garner more donations.
"If someone starts with the crowdfunded idea to develop a drug to combat an imaginary virus. If that drug is dangerous and kills someone, the developers of the drug are personally liable and will go bankrupt from lawsuits against them."
Not smart. People can die from drinking too much water—somewhere, someplace. His 'perfect' scenario is untenable and fantastical. Nothing is 100% safe or can be made 100% safe, rendering his claim a fantasy detached from reality, all whilst labeling science as fraudulent for the very pitfalls his own ideas would face and succumb to.
The problem is that he doesn't even know the terms, let alone the science that underlies them. He could learn a great deal without ever stepping foot into a lab, but he has failed to listen to those who have, to learn from them, and to understand the science they use. His pompous attitude is very telling.
This 'I know more than people who research the evidence, carry out the experiments, or experience and test their hypotheses.' mentality is very prevalent in the 'truth movement' as a whole. You've seen it many times by people right here in my comment sections who will outright deny evidence to suit their own cognitive dissonance.
Free market science would be an unmitigated disaster. It would be no different than something like free market 'law and order', where the court of law is ruled by popular vote instead of strict laws and procedures. It would be nothing less than a popularity contest carried out by extremely biased mouth-breathers who are not interested in the veracity of their results.
For example, imagine a slew of anti-science Trump supporters overseeing studies on stem cells—yeah, that wouldn't go well.
Thank you, Jeff, for the review of Jamie's Substack post. I am largely in agreement with the points you make. There are some problems with peer review and scientific publications but otherwise Jamie's understanding of current "Science" is woefully lacking.
I'm particularly appalled by his "Overton Window" passage. He says he hired CROs who told him they routinely do whatever it takes to ensure the client gets the results they want. That alone means any results he has obtained from them are worthless. It also means he can never publish the identity of any of the CROs or individual scientists because he would expose them as unethical frauds. That would be VERY bad for business.
Test it until it passes or conforms to expectations is the farthest thing from ethical pharmaceutical laboratory practices. Extraordinary measures are taken to ensure reliable measurements and protect data integrity. All quality control labs have procedures for investigation of out-of-specification or out-of-trend results. This is taken very seriously and the records of those investigations are nearly always requested during a regulatory audit. FDA warning letters are publicly available and no company wants to be found in that hall of shame.
It's really sad to see there are well-meaning but gullible individuals who think Jamie is performing a valuable service.
I feel the same about those lines. At first, he alleges that researchers and scientists are purposefully engaging in fraudulent acts, only to later assert that he doesn't believe it's intentional, thereby contradicting himself.
Years ago, I may have shared a similar perspective, but as I expanded my understanding, I realized my view was narrow and ultimately incorrect. Science does not function in the limited manner Jamie portrays; it comprises diverse individuals worldwide who adhere to the scientific method.
It is not the outright fraudulent endeavor Jamie depicts, even though science and its individual branches are not completely flawless in every way. No-Virus exploits minor issues in science, or the history of scientific discovery, to justify their sweeping rejection of the entirety of science, which is why they make such sweeping claims about virology. They assert that virology is fraudulent in the same way. I'm surprised they haven't yet claimed that micrographs are fake.
Additionally, when you consider that these same people have embraced other illogical conspiracy theories without any factual or logical basis, before their denial of viruses came to be, the picture becomes clearer. They are simply extending their initial unfounded beliefs and applying that same system of thinking to microbiology and science as a whole.
Jamie Andrews posted on Twitter on July 17 concerning some comments in a "The Real Truther" Twitter space from July 16 where Thomas Baldwin (@sense_strand) criticized Jamie's cell culture experiments. Instead of posting an excerpt from his own protocol Jamie posted a portion of a Sigma Aldrich product information document titled "HEK 293 Cell Growth and Virus Production in EX-CELL 293 Serum-Free Medium". He highlighted the following section:
"Titrations were performed in 96-well microtiter plates as follows: HEK 293 cells were seeded in DMEM with 6 mM L-glutamine and 5% FBS at 1 x 10^4 cells/100 μL/well. Duplicate serial dilutions (10^-1 to 10^-11) of each lysate were made in DMEM with 2% FBS and 2 mM L-glutamine, and 100 μL was added to each well. Plates were incubated at 37 C, 10% CO2 for 10 days, then observed on an inverted microscope for cytopathic effect (CPE). "
This is for TCID50 (Tissue Culture Infectious Dose) titration. I think this procedure is distinct from the cell culture experiments Jamie is supposed to be conducting.
Right, we've all been keeping up with it, and so far, he hasn't released anything legitimate. This week on Twitter, Thomas prodded him further for details of his methods on Twitter, but he just said, "Wait until they're released.", and continued to call Thomas a liar. During a Real Truther space last Tuesday night, Thomas challenged a couple of No-Virus members about Jamie's experiments.
It was clearly exposed that the experiments violated protocols and procedures, making the entire experiment illegitimate. Jamie refuses to reveal the name of the CRO or the methods he used. It was also uncovered during the space that Jamie actually instructed the CRO to simply find things that LOOK similar to viruses. However, none of the findings even look similar to viruses, and no nucleic acid testing was done to confirm their presence.
During the Real Truther Space, Justin Leslie was in the unenviable position of defending Jamie's work. For someone with a decent science background he wasn't able to support or refute anything beyond repeating the "viruses have never been isolated or purified" refrain. Thomas Baldwin demolished him.
Justin Leslie is best known for doing the Project Veritas interviews with Jordon Trishton Walker. He likes to be seen as a Pfizer Whistleblower but he only worked a short time as a lab grunt for Pfizer and ended up with very little to whistle about.
Jamie was a guest on Justin's podcast a few days ago. Toward the end of the podcast Jamie said "We want to hear what people have to say on all sides." I've never seen him react positively to constructive criticism. Anyone who doesn't praise his project receives scorn and derision. I laughed out loud when Jamie said "I want to be a thought leader in order to push for Science 2.0."
Yes, that's all nonsense by Jamie. I appreciate your insights and the fact that you're keeping me informed about the parts I may have missed. Justin Leslie was unable to answer any questions, and another person whose name I didn't catch stated, "To isolate a virus, you just look at it..." ...what? These statements completely undermined their claims and, consequently, Jamie's supposed experiments.
Jamie has blocked me on all platforms simply for presenting the facts in a polite manner. I have been called a liar by Jamie at least 20 times now, among other things. He has also lashed out and attacked Thomas and others who asked questions, labeling them as liars and calling them "Pieces of shite." It's laughable anyone would believe Jamie when he claims he wants to be a thought leader. I haven't seen someone with such toxic behavior in a long time.
To make matters worse, many of their followers have infiltrated my Substack. Some even pay to subscribe. They pretend to be honest subscribers and attempt to dissuade me from questioning any of these people. They push the narrative that if I challenge them, it reflects poorly on me. But who are these people to dictate how I should run my own channel?
Many of these same people are incapable of engaging in any form of debate or discussion and would not stick their neck out for anything like I do.
You witnessed this in my last article, where people try to persuade me from expressing my own viewpoint based on evidence. Suddenly, asking for evidence is seen as a negative trait. Suddenly, defending oneself and one's positions is a no-no. But where is the backlash from Jamie acting like a petulant child toward others for simply challenging his claims?
It's as simple as this: Researchers and scientists must maintain checks and balances to prevent others from being misled. If it weren't for myself and others who put in the hard work to educate people about the truth in these matters, there would be no alternative to counter the falsehoods propagated by Jamie and others. And I'm beyond tired of being told that I should not be doing such things on my own page.
The other No-Virus person on the Real Truther Space was Luis. I don't know anything about him.
Ok, he's the one who said, "To isolate it, you just look at it."—claiming you can't use natural chemical reactions to purify and isolate something. Very telling statement.
If Jamie Andrews and team wanted to be taken seriously they should have published their experimental protocols PRIOR to beginning the work. Then, as the work proceeded, any planned or accidental deviations from the protocols should have been documented. They're crowing about "the foundations of virology are now proven to be totally fraudulent" (Alec Zeck) when they haven't actually proven anything other than their incompetence. They wasted a lot of money and they're asking for donations of a lot more money.
Yes, I'm done with these people. They're as extreme as the staunch pro-vaccine advocates who push vaccines regardless of the evidence. It's just two sides of the same coin. Good example: https://x.com/thereal_truther/status/1721933752442732901. And Kirsch has his own problems with his narrative as well about viruses, but nothing like the other side.
There is no balance whatsoever in the "truth community". It's either extreme left, or extreme right, and little to no balance. When I come along, I am downvoted, dogpiled, and belittled. Yet, they don't have the slightest clue what I know or what I am imparting.
The formula for Earth curvature drop is 8 in per mile squared.
The Earth curve calculator and reality all match up.
Imagine we are in the middle of Pacific. Standing on a 3000 ft platform The horizon would be 67 miles away. A canoe 700 mi away would be around 50 miles below the physical horizon if it existed.
*** If you draw a straight line from that 3,000 foot platform to the horizon and across the canoe's position, the canoe would be 50 miles below that line. If we elevated that canoe 3 MI in the air it would now be 47 MI below that line ***
It's spherical geometry.
If we put a 15,000 ft tall volcano on that spot in the ocean, the base would be around 50 MI below the horizon. The top of that cube would be around 47 MI below the horizon. It would also be slightly tilting away on a hypothetical sphere.
All the elevations on Earth are measured above sea level so they wrap around the hypothetical sphere.
This means that the mountain in Wales would be like the 3000 ft viewing platform in the ocean, and Mont Blanc would be like the 15, 000 ft volcano in the ocean. Therefore Mont Blanc would be around 47 miles below line of sight.
You know how a full-on paid celebrity globe Earth shill like YouTube's "Professor Dave" deals with these line of sight globe killers? He just says that they're fake photos and videos because that's all he has.
This is from a video by youtuber JTolanMedia1, an FE researcher, who is a French engineer who works for an American company. He uses an infrared filter that he made for his video cameras.
He took video from an airplane flying on a domestic flight in California so I'll assume around 33,000 ft in altitude and he's 170 miles from Tahoe.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBs62toawAAWQqc?format=jpg&name=orig
530 miles to the Ivanpah solar plant. (3000 ft)
350 miles from Lake Tahoe (6200 ft) to Ivanpah
Horizon should be around 200 miles and Ivanpah should be 12 miles below the horizon line of sight
Hope this helps
No, it doesn't help because everything you wrote is false.
That video is a fraud. The mountains claimed to be Monte Blanc and other nearby mountains are merely clouds on the horizon. Moreover, most of the clouds are located in the wrong spots relative to the mountain's actual locations.
Additionally, the claims you are making are inconsequential because there are thousands of other proofs that prove Earth is a sphere; the totality of circumstances.
I've also looked at flat earth research for 9 yrs and all evidence supports the plane. Also people such as Kaufman and Zeck have spoken in favor of the flat earth model. BTW Jeff, you are a flatearther also. You should research and deprogram yourself from the globe earth psyop.
Watch and learn
Photo from Wales of Mont Blanc:
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/world-record-proof-of-our-flat-earth-700:6
https://odysee.com/@FEIsTheKey:a/World-Record--Flat-Earth-Proof---Israel-to-Crete---616-Miles:2
That video is a fraud. The mountains claimed to be Monte Blanc and other nearby mountains are merely clouds on the horizon. Moreover, most of the clouds are located in the wrong spots relative to the mountain's actual locations.
Yes, the idiot is on a 3000 ft peak in Wales
Something NOBODY is taught in school is the earth curvature formula.
Want to know why?
If you put a camera on a lake 20 miles across at a height of 3 ft above the water the opposite shore should be 215 ft below the horizon
But all lakes tend to measure perfectly flat via lasers and other optical tests
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature
From that height the horizon is 67 miles away Mont Blanc would be almost 50 miles below the horizon. You can show this on AutoCAD as well.
Shows that you know absolutely nothing about FE and as Zeck said on Twitter, he thought it was idiotic in 2020 until he started studying the topic.
FE is also a reason the Antarctic and independent travel below 60 degrees south is restricted
You see Jeff, as earth is a measurably flat "infinite" plane we are all flat earthers. Most people are ignorant and/or in denial
Edit: Again, that video is a fraud.
Are you saying that people exhale "viruses" that are making them sick which are inhaled by another person to potentially give that person the symptoms of the exhaler?
You must be completely new to Jeff's work.