Jamie Andrew's Falsehoods Continue

Jamie Andrews has written an article on the subject of Lanka and Enders’ 1954 foundational measles paper. I will be addressing some of Andrew’s inaccuracies below.

Legally Speaking - by Jamie Andrews (substack.com)

---

“On Appeal the Judge gave Lanka the Win because the terms of the bet stated that Lanka wanted ONE paper.”

---

“This trial is huge in that it has set a Precedent for what constitutes as evidence for the existence of a virus. In this case BOTH THE EXPERT AND JUDGE AGREED in their statements and conclusions that NO SINGLE paper constituted evidence of the existence of a virus.”

The case was ruled in Lanka's favor because the terms of the bet were narrowly defined to require a single paper. However, the reality is that the existence of viruses, like many scientific concepts, is established through a body of evidence rather than a single, definitive paper. There is no one foundational paper that proves the totality of a virus's existence; rather, it's a comprehensive understanding derived from multiple studies, experiments, and observations over time. I do not remotely see this conveyed in any of his claims.

Andrew’s summary portrays the lower court's decision as an "ad hoc judgment" with a bias against Lanka, implying procedural unfairness without providing concrete evidence to support this claim. The lower court did initially rule in favor of Bardens, but not simply because the judge arbitrarily denied Lanka a rebuttal. The court ruled based on the evidence presented.

The claim that the judge's ruling was based on a deep scientific discussion about the validity of Koch's postulates or the specifics of virus isolation is exaggerated. The court's decision was procedural—not a scientific judgment on the existence of the measles virus. The court did not make a judgment on the scientific validity of the papers but rather on the specific terms of Lanka's challenge.

Again, the claims about setting a precedent that "no single paper constitutes evidence of the existence of a virus" are overstated. The court ruling did not establish a legal precedent on scientific matters; it was narrowly focused on the terms of the bet and not on the scientific method or validity of virology.

---

𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬’ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐬:

“You will note the Enders “Isolation” which was debunked in his own paper with the control exhibiting CPE (LOL).”

John Enders’ 1954 paper on measles virus in tissue cultures did include negative controls, but the execution and interpretation of these controls were not without issues. The controls in Enders’ study did not completely rule out non-specific effects or contamination, which led to some ambiguity about the observed CPE. The controls were not as refined as those used in later studies.

The claims raised about the negative controls in John Enders’ 1954 experiment have been addressed in subsequent studies, further clarifying the methodology and improving the rigor of virological research. In the subsequent studies that followed John Enders’ 1954 experiment, the use of controls became more sophisticated and rigorous. These controls were more rigorous experimental designs that include improved handling, culture conditions, and monitoring to ensure that observed effects are attributable to the virus rather than to artifacts or contamination. These later studies did not show the same effects in uninoculated cultures (negative controls) as Enders initially reported.

The findings of Enders' experiment were replicated and validated across various laboratories worldwide, using different strains of the measles virus and different cell cultures. The consistency of these results across multiple studies and settings provided strong evidence that the measles virus was indeed real and that the effects observed in Enders' experiment were not artifacts.

Studies conducted over time in different populations consistently identified the measles virus in patients with measles. These studies also employed rigorous controls, showing that the virus could be reliably detected only in infected individuals.

---

“As part of the Control Studies we have FALSIFIED the cell culture isolation method. Given that Christine Massey has confirmed with her FOIA requests that ALL Viruses in every UN country are ONLY isolated in Cell Culture, we have falsified ALL virus isolation. This combined with the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka we have shown this to occur in both HEK293 cell lines AND Vero cell lines leaving little doubt that this will be similar in all others, although we hope to carry out the experiments to prove this.”

Jamie Andrews has not conducted his experiment involving nucleic acid chemical analysis or identified structures that resemble viruses in any of his controls. Further still, his experiment does not include the sort of circumstantial evidence typically associated with virological studies. Essentially, he lacks both the findings and methodologies necessary to substantiate his claims, nor does he provide the documented data or evidence typically required to support such conclusions.

Lastly, Massey's Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have been significantly misrepresented. Her inability to frame these requests properly—which I believe is intentional—has resulted in ‘inadequate’ responses, which she then distorts to mislead her audience. This pattern of misrepresentation has been critically examined and refuted by myself and other researchers.

---

Jeff Green