Jamie Andrews Reveals the Ignorance & Paranoia in the 'Truth Movement'

Jamie Andrew's Results - Not What he Wanted.

In a recent article by Jamie Andrews of N0-ViRus, Jamie asserts the following:

So far with the project, every experiment we have conducted has proved our hypothesis correct. In the 12 experiments in Cell Culture Controls with no added sample the CRO measured CPE in ALL 90+ cultures, measured with objective verification of the COUNTESS cell viability counter as well as observed CPE morphology in the Cell Line supposed to indicate a “virus” (Cell rounding, clumping, syncytia, lifting, floating). This was within the time frames and amounts according to the American Society of Microbiology.

We then managed to identify on our first attempt in just 6 TEM photographs, particles of the same shape, size, coating and inclusion to the CDC documented images and descriptions of “Sars Cov 2”, “Measles” and “Hiv”.

Let me break this down: Jamie Andrews is egregiously misrepresenting his findings. Not a single virus was detected in any of the 90+ cultures, yet he’s released no solid evidence to back his claims. His assertion that his samples resemble SARS-CoV-2 is outright false—his sample barely resembles a coronavirus at all. If Jamie wants to prove me wrong, he needs to release actual evidence instead of relying on the “point and declare” methodology used by those in the No-Virus camp to discredit virology—something they also falsely accuse virologists of doing. Rules for thee, but not for me?

Once again, I’ll reiterate: Jamie has zero evidence to support his claims that CPE was observed in any of his cell cultures. Cytotoxicity was all that was observed—not viral CPE.

His claim that his cell cultures resemble any of the viruses he mentions is laughable. The viruses he lists are enveloped, which makes them difficult to morphologically distinguish from vesicles or other particles, unless you have a strong grasp of viral structure and morphology—something Jamie clearly lacks. While coronaviruses are easier to tell apart from other viruses due to their apparent spike proteins, the spike proteins of coronaviruses are prone to damage from electron microscopy, which can render such a virus difficult to distinguish from vesicles. The other viruses he mentions, like measles and HIV, are even harder to tell apart because their spike proteins are less pronounced, or are covered under a lipid bilayer, and are also much shorter than those of SARS-CoV-2. Jamie should consider taking a course on viral structure before making such claims, as his ignorance is glaringly obvious.

---

Jamie further states:

My alarm bells should really have rung when I was ushered to have a 45 minute interview with the CEO of the Genetics Lab asking me who I was and what I was trying to achieve. This is an entirely unorthodox approach to Contract work within the Scientific industry, with all of the other work done with CROs when blind to the aims of the project they have asked for bare minimum questions, usually refined to simple administrative or logistical enquiries.

Yes, I’d be alarmed too if I realized someone was trying to use my lab to push an anti-science agenda. Jamie’s paranoia is undeniable. To him, it’s all part of some grand conspiracy targeting him and his No-Virus narrative. Naturally, No-Virus attracts those with paranoid delusions. How do I know? I’ve been accused of being a Pfizer employee, without a shred of evidence, simply for acknowledging that viruses exist.

---

Jamie goes on to state:

Also, a positive from the tests does NOT actually mean that the “virus” is present, you must confirm with Whole Genome Sequencing before you can say for certain. This is why we are focusing on Whole Genome Sequencing controls currently, as being the end of the line for all of the “genetics evidence”.

Yet, in most cases, a positive result from tests like PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) indicates the presence of viral genetic material, meaning the virus (or at least fragments of it) has been detected. Therefore, his claim here is also false.

---

Jamie reveals his ignorance and puts it on full display:

When having the meeting with both the CSO and CEO of the genetics lab, the topic of primer selection came up. Because they were both privy to the knowledge that there couldn’t possibly have been a “virus” in the samples, this seemed to be a large hurdle of choosing what to look for.

I suggested that there must be a non-specific primer used for when you didn’t know what was in the cultures. According to the text books you should have a fair indication from symptoms of the patient the sample was taken from. But this surely can’t tell you for instance between all of the millions of different variants of Influenza and Coronavirus.

So I assumed there must be some sort of generic primer that could tell you the ball park any “virus” in the dish was in… i.e have you got an Influenza or Coronavirus in the culture to then narrow it down. Apparently not only did this not exist, it was very difficult for the CSO to even comprehend what I was asking for. LOL. It seems as if you have to be a fortune teller if working in the sector of Genetics. You have to KNOW what virus you are looking for BEFORE the test, so you choose the specific primers only. I found this in and of itself very revealing as it shows the whole process is through predictions and molding of input materials.

A rundown on his falsehoods:

1. Generic Primers for Viral Detection:

   • Primers are short sequences of nucleotides that are specifically designed to bind to a complementary sequence in a viral genome during PCR testing. They are highly specific because viral genomes can differ drastically. No universal or generic primer can tell you whether a sample contains "any" virus, let alone distinguish between, say, Influenza and Coronavirus. Viruses are too diverse genetically for such a one-size-fits-all approach, rendering Jamie’s claims absurd.

   • The idea of a "generic primer" is scientifically nonsensical because viruses are incredibly variable. Developing a "generic" tool would lack the specificity necessary for accurate diagnostics.

2. Viral Detection:

   • The assumption that one must “be a fortune teller” to work in genetics is both inaccurate and a misunderstanding of the scientific method. PCR testing is not based on guesswork; it's a precise process designed to detect known genetic sequences. Researchers use specific primers because they know which virus or set of viruses they are testing for.

   • Viral detection is not about guessing but rather informed hypothesis. Based on symptoms, data, or epidemiological factors, scientists choose tests that are most likely to detect the suspected pathogen. If they didn’t do this, they’d be shooting in the dark like inept imbeciles.

3. Process Involves Predictions and Input Molding:

   • The accusation that the process is based on “predictions” and the "molding of input materials" is a fundamental misrepresentation. Genetic testing, especially PCR, follows rigorous protocols to detect specific viruses based on empirical data. It’s not a flexible process where the outcome is pre-determined or manipulated.

With that said, Jamie’s statements reflect ignorance of basic molecular biology, and the protocols used in virology. Far from being a form of "fortune telling," viral detection is a meticulous, evidence-based process where specificity is key. Scientific testing requires some knowledge of what you're looking for—that’s a strength, not a flaw, and shame on Jamie for trying to claim scientists are going out of their way to intentionally lie about such a thing.

---

Jamie states:

On interview with the independent genetics lab I put this scenario to them and asked if they knew what the problem with this might be. The almost instantaneous answer back was “Oh that’ll be the internal thresholds need adjusting”. As I had only ever heard of the term Threshold in reference to Cycle Threshold (CT) before I inquired back ; “Oh they need to adjust the CT?” They replied back “No that is after amplification, this is a threshold for the machines sensitivity for background noise”.

I thought this was very odd that there seemed to be hidden parameters which could dial up or down the sensitivity of the machine. A little Googling later and Lo and Behold I found this thing called Baseline Correction. It is an internal threshold to adjust for “Background Noise” but seems it can be dialed up or down to affect sensitivity right across all channels. In Layman’s Terms… it is adjusting how sensitive the camera is for picking up the flashing lights from the Fluorescent Dye they intentionally put in.

This means that the “CT”value is effectively altered up or down depending on this internal threshold. Again in simplistic terms it means that a CT value of say 35 can mean anything from 20 to 50 cycles relative depending on this Baseline Correction.

This was just from the Baseline Correction alterations given in the manual above for setup with a value of up to 15 cycles different. Is it possible to go even higher? My instincts would tell me so.

Addressing Jamie’s Paranoia:

1. "Hidden parameters" and Sensitivity Adjustment:

   • Machines that detect fluorescent dyes (such as those used in qPCR) do indeed have adjustable parameters, including sensitivity settings. But, these parameters are not "hidden" but are necessary for ensuring accurate detection by accounting for background noise, which is standard in scientific and diagnostic equipment.

   • Baseline correction is a legitimate concept. It adjusts for background fluorescence to ensure that only relevant signals (from the target substance) are detected. Without baseline correction, false positives or negatives could occur, as the machine would pick up irrelevant noise.

2. "Dialing up or down sensitivity across channels":

   • Adjusting sensitivity isn't about manipulating results but fine-tuning the machine to detect the true signal amidst background noise. These settings ensure that the machine operates within its optimal range, detecting only the signals from the intended reactions.

   • In qPCR, for example, fluorescent signals from a dye indicate amplification of a genetic sequence. The machine measures the fluorescence at each cycle, and baseline correction helps differentiate actual amplification from random noise or background signals.

3. "Adjusting how sensitive the camera is for picking up the flashing lights":

   • Fluorescent dyes are used intentionally to make certain biological reactions visible. However, it's not about "flashing lights" but rather quantifying the amount of fluorescence in real time, which correlates with the presence of the target genetic material.

   • The camera (or detector) in such machines must be sensitive enough to detect the fluorescence but not so sensitive that it mistakes random noise for a real signal.

Thus, sensitivity settings and baseline correction are standard procedures in fluorescence-based diagnostics to ensure accuracy, not to manipulate results, as Jamie suggests.

---

Jamie Andrew Reveals his Results - Not What he Wanted

Both I, and Thomas Baldwin, along with others, repeatedly told Jamie that his results would come back negative—and that's exactly what has happened. Despite this, we were called every name in the book by this bully wannabe researcher.

Jamie’s Results

So we received back the test results and the Genetics Lab said that unfortunately the samples were all negative and that they recommended we get them whole genome sequenced to find out what “virus” was in the culture that caused our observed CPE.

This was a bit stomach churning to take, we had received “positive” confirmation on EVERY try for the other areas of this. It doesn’t mean that our hypothesis was falsified as samples CAN be negative. If it was just the primers affecting it then you would expect to ONLY see positive results or couldn’t possibly see mixed results from the same batch with the same volumes of primers in. So there MUST be something in the sample they are registering.

Jamie’s Conclusion

There we have it, a Negative result, but some extremely useful information learned from this process. Maybe more useful than receiving back a positive as we have potentially found a huge area of manipulation in these tests that were otherwise unnoticed.

1. The CT value may not be the CT value…. lol… it very well maybe completely different given the Baseline Correction for the thermocycler.

2. Positive Controls aren’t always that “Positive”, note that they NEVER give you the Positive Control value as a benchmark when hearing PCR test results, this area alone needs a lot of scrutiny.

3. The Importance of BLINDING in this process, the labs CANNOT have any idea of what is or isn’t in the culture, especially when it comes to our mythical “viruses”.

4. It seems that it is totally possible to manipulate and defraud negative OR positive results from the machine settings alone.

5. Even if all had gone to plan, the get out clauses were always in place with PCR not being for “diagnostic or therapeutic” use and also not necessarily being accurate and needing confirmation in Whole Genome Sequencing.

We will no doubt return to do some BLINDED PCR tests as part of the project, but for now are focused on the end of the line with Whole Genome Sequencing….. watch this space.

It seems like Jamie's next frontier is Whole Genome Sequencing. But if his PCR tests already came back negative for any viruses, what’s the point of wasting money on sequencing? Whole Genome Sequencing is typically used to map out the entire genetic makeup of a virus, but if there's no virus detected in the first place, there's nothing to sequence. It’s like trying to draw a map of a place that doesn’t exist.

This conclusion by Jamie demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how PCR and Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) work, along with an unfounded assumption of manipulation in diagnostic processes, as I wrote about earlier in the article.

Let’s address some of Jamie’s false statements:

1. "A negative result, but useful information": Jamie is shifting the narrative by implying that a negative result reveals hidden flaws or manipulations in the testing process, rather than accepting it at face value. This is a common tactic used to avoid acknowledging an outcome that contradicts one's beliefs.

2. "CT value may not be the CT value": Jamie's claim that baseline correction changes the CT (cycle threshold) value misunderstands how PCR works. Baseline correction is used to account for background noise, ensuring accurate detection. It doesn't alter the actual amplification process or manipulate results, as I previously mentioned.

3. "Positive controls aren’t always that 'positive'": Positive controls are used to ensure the test is working correctly. The reason a specific control value isn’t always reported is because the positive control is there to validate the test process, not to serve as a diagnostic benchmark for each individual test. His suggestion that this is some kind of hidden manipulation is off base.

4. "Blinding the process": While blinding can reduce bias in certain experimental setups, in diagnostic testing, laboratories follow standard protocols that focus on accuracy and reproducibility, not guesswork or manipulation. Blinding in routine viral detection is unnecessary because the protocols and test designs are standardized. Further, Jamie wants to blind the scientists where they cannot know what they are searching for. This is asinine on its face and displays Jamie’s ulterior motives.

5. "Manipulating results from machine settings": This reflects a total lack of understanding of how PCR machines operate and an unwillingness to learn basics and admitting he is wrong. Instead, he turns it into a conspiracy, so he never has to admit fault.
   Adjustments in settings like sensitivity or baseline correction are for optimizing accuracy, not "defrauding" results. Any claim that results can be manipulated just by tweaking machine settings without corrupting the overall scientific integrity is an oversimplification. Additionally, for these tests to be fraudulent, researchers worldwide would have to be complicit. If not, any well-intentioned scientist would have uncovered the scheme and exposed it by now.

6. "PCR not for diagnostic use": This misrepresents PCR’s utility. While PCR wasn’t originally developed as a diagnostic tool, it has been validated and widely used in diagnostics for decades, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The idea that WGS is necessary to confirm every PCR test is impractical and unnecessary for routine diagnoses.

---

Final Words:

Jamie’s entire poor-grammar filled argument hinges on paranoia and speculative mistrust of established scientific processes, trying to imply that negative results reveal manipulation. His leap from PCR to Whole Genome Sequencing is a distraction that will lead to asking for more help from his audience to deliver results. The conclusions he draws about test settings and control values show a lack of basic understanding of molecular diagnostics. Instead of "finding manipulation," he is misinterpreting standard practices to make it appear that there is fraud or manipulation where there is none, so that he can have his cake and eat it too. This behavior is all too common in the so-called 'Truth Movement.'

If Jamie ever does release his Whole Genome Sequencing results, they too will come back negative. However, No-Virus will continue to spread falsehoods, as their narrative depends on it. They have demonstrated a complete disregard for truth and evidence, and that is truly a shame

Jeff Green