Blowing The Lid Off Virology (Or Bird Flu Part 2)

🖨️ Print post

If the bird flu virus hasn’t been isolated, why does it matter? What are the implications? Has any virus EVER been isolated? These are questions that have the potential to undermine our current understanding not only of viruses but of all sicknesses. Jamie Andrews is the Project Manager overseeing control studies to reexamine our understanding of virology. He addresses today the methodology for the new studies, the reason behind them, and what this has to do with our own personal approach to wellbeing and nurturing good health.

Go to Jamie’s substack account for more information

Register for the Wise Traditions conference in Orlando

Check out our sponsors: Optimal Carnivore and Sacred Hunting

—

Listen to the podcast here

 

Episode Transcript

Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Jamie Andrews.

Did you know that the bird flu virus has never been isolated? If that’s the case, what are the implications for your health? This is episode 491, and our guest is Jamie Andrews. Jamie is the Project Manager for Control Experiments of the Virological Methodology. In tandem with 100 researchers, health practitioners, seasoned microbiologists, and geneticists, Jamie is seeking to get to the bottom of the existence of viruses and blow the lid off of our current understanding of virology.

In this episode, Jamie explores the significance of studying viruses and the bird flu. This episode builds on the last episode with Jacob Diaz. Jamie places the bird flu within a broader context of viruses and pandemics in history. He explains why this research that he’s doing is groundbreaking and why it has not been undertaken previously. Additionally, Jamie discusses the implications of this pioneering work, why it makes a difference for each of us, and how we approach health as individuals and as a society.

Before we get into the conversation, I want to invite you to the Wise Traditions Conference in Orlando, Florida, this October 2024, from the 25th to the 27th. We are excited to announce that Dr. Tom Cowan will be there as one of our distinguished guest speakers. Many of you may know Dr. Cowan since he is the Vice President of the Weston A. Price Foundation. He is also a renowned alternative medical doctor, author, and speaker.

We are so excited that he will be introducing the film Farewell to Virology. He will also delve into a new approach to treating disease and bringing about healing and health. He will also participate in a panel discussion with doctors from the New Biology Clinic. We can’t wait to see him there and to see you there. Go to the Wise Traditions website right now to register. This is the conference that will nourish in every way. We look forward to seeing you there.

—

Go to Jamie’s Substack account for more information

Register for the Wise Traditions Conference in Orlando

Check out our sponsors: Optimal Carnivore and Sacred Hunting

—

Welcome to the show, Jamie.

Hilda, thank you for having me on.

For the sake of time, we are going to cut to the chase. In the last episode, I talked to Jacob Diaz, who gave us the framework for why we shouldn’t necessarily believe the bird flu narrative out there. Now, I want to dive deeper and understand. When Jacob and I were talking, he said that the PCR test gave some so-called positive cases in terms of chickens and farmers with pink eyes, but is it true that there has been no isolation of a bird flu virus? What does the PCR test have to do with it?

That’s right. It can become quite confusing for people when they hear these hook lines that are put out on Twitter and everywhere. There’s been no isolation. People say, “The virus hasn’t been isolated.” I don’t think many people understand why we’re saying that. Let me be short and brief. No, it has never been isolated, but they have tried. What they consider to call isolation, they do all of the time. It’s standard protocol within virological labs to do a cell culture isolation which is where they take the fluids of a diseased bird, in this case with bird flu, as Jacob eloquently described some of the misleadings around the bird flu.

They take these disease tissues and they put them in cell culture. I’m fairly sure that they use canines or dog cells for these things. I don’t exactly know why they chose a completely different species of birds. They mix them with fetal bovine serum, which is the fluid from around the heart of a cow. They wash them with antibiotics to remove some of the bacterial and fungal contamination that may be present in these cultures.

When these dog or canine kidney cells break down, they point to them and say, “That must mean that there’s a virus in there.” Now to the logic of mine, you could assume that these cells are dying. It’s in vitro. There are two types of science, in vitro and in vivo. You look at the body as a whole when you’re looking in vivo and in vitro is all in the Petri dish in a lab.

You’re trying to recreate life and I don’t particularly agree with a lot of the things that they do to try and mimic life, but that’s what they’re trying to do in a Petri dish is mimic tissue from an animal that is being affected pathogenically by a supposed virus. Now, the reason why I say no, they have never isolated it is because, as part of our project, and there have been numerous other projects that have shown this.

Even the first person to come up with the gold standard of cell culture isolation was John Enders in 1954. When he didn’t inoculate his culture with the supposed measles-containing fluid, he got the same results. He said in his own paper, “I observed these cell lines dying without putting anything that could contain a virus in it.”

It is mind-blowing. In other words, virologists are saying that they’re finding or identifying viruses of all sorts using Koch’s postulates and the method you mentioned just now, which is inserting other factors and DNA. It’s mind-boggling to me because if they don’t put in what they consider to be the virus culture, they still get the same response or occlusion.[Ma1]

That’s right. It’s high school-level science when you look at it. If the independent variable isn’t in there and the same results are recurring in your experiment, the experiment is null and void. You throw it out. Whereas virologists seem to have gone, “I don’t know if we put it in, then there’s cytopathic effect and that’s it. There’s a virus in our culture now.”

Christine Massey has obviously done lots of freedom of information requests to every single health body practically in the world and certainly in the Western world, where they have to admit that every single virus that they have has been isolated in a cell culture manner. When you work back, you say, “If they cannot say categorically that this cytopathic effect is caused by it because it is irrelevant to whether there is a sample in there or not, then you can say they haven’t isolated the virus.” That’s a brief introduction to why people say there has never been an isolated virus.

However, if we were to stop a virologist on the street and say to him or her, “Have viruses been isolated,” they would say an emphatic yes, wouldn’t they?

Of course, yeah.

It’s because their understanding of it is that what we see in the Petri dish is a virus because we’ve called it a virus, and that’s the end of that.

That’s right. To go a bit further, if you ask the right questions to virologists, they will say that they can’t be sure if they are intellectually honest because it’s well-known. It’s written in numerous papers that what they do as part of every single viral isolation protocol is to remove the fetal bovine serum. The fetal bovine serum is nutrient-base. You grow out the cell line in it, and you take it with the bird fluid serum canine kidneys with SARS-CoV-2. It’s monkey kidney cells Vero E6 cells and you grow them in these mediums because the cells like them.

It contains lots of nutrients. They’re happy and healthy in these mediums. They grow right to the end of the Petri dish and you start the experiment then. When you start the experiment, they remove all of the nutrients. They take it from 10%, which is a growth percentage down to 2%, and sometimes even 1%ne rarely. They remove the nutrients. They starve the cells and then they add the sample. It’s well-known and well-documented within published and peer-reviewed science that starving cell lines causes apoptosis or cell death.

 

Any virologist or microbiologist who is intellectually honest will say that they cannot be sure. Purely from the cell culture isolation, they need other verification methods, which are, let’s say, electron microscopy, where they zoom in and point at the particles and say, “That’s a virus. These things are here.” Also, further on, as Jacob was saying, with PCR, whole genomic sequencing, and somewhat antibodies. They are relying on things further downstream to confirm the cytopathic effect within these cultures.

There are so many holes in this. As you said, it’s high school science, and even for those of us who don’t remember our high school science, I have questions like those particles that they are saying are the virus have been identified in healthy people who don’t have any symptoms of being sick. That’s when they say, “That means they’re asymptomatic.”

One that came unstuck in a paper called Viral-Like Inclusions Renal Biopsies was in 2019, where they were looking at kidney biopsies from healthy people and found things that looked identical to COVID. The round blobs with the spikes and the protein inclusions. They had to do a bit of a double track by saying, “You can’t use TEM or electron microscopy as an identification method in and of itself.”

Here, we’ve leaped two stages forward. Again, if virologists are being honest, when they say, “The thing that we thought was happening in the cell culture doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a virus. The thing that we’re pointing at in electron microscopy doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a virus.” They’re kicking the can further and further down the road until we reach the endpoint, which is PCR and genetics.

How is that the endpoint?

Full Genome Sequencing

They can’t go any further than that. The whole genome sequencing is done where they come out, and they say, “This is the exact sequence that we have of the genetics of SARS-CoV-2.” In this case, this means that it is that. It’s because PCR, again, if you back a geneticist into a corner, they will say, “You have to go and hold genome sequence it. We can’t clarify that the positive that we have from a PCR test is exactly it. You have to go and get it full genome sequenced.”

The problem with full genome sequencing is that they can’t replicate it. They have this sequence, but using the same sample with the same machine and the same alignment software, they can’t replicate it. There are numerous other issues to do with the fact that when they try and sequence other people who have the same symptomology, they come up with wildly different genome sequences that they call variants. That’s why there are more than a million of these variants in these gene banks is because it’s just inaccuracies within their own sequencing. Whenever they get it wrong, they go, “It’s another variant,” and we strike it back off. At the end of the road is the genetics road. You can go into mass spectrometry, but it’s very tenuous.

 

To bring it back to the layperson like me, help us understand why does all of this matters. Some might say, “We know there are viruses because people get sick and they get sick from one another.” We don’t even need to have a microscope of a certain intensity or a petri dish to know there’s something out there.

That’s a question with a few different answers. I come from a background of doing research. I come from a scientific background a little bit. I did geology at university. I’m used to handling data. I’m used to researching published papers and things like that. When 2020 came about, I didn’t know anything about virology at all, but something didn’t make sense to me. That was looking at lots of the death statistics that were coming out and seeing what they called transmission of a deadly virus between people.

At the time, I agreed with it. I had no reason not to think that this was the way that the world worked, but there were so many inconsistencies in my logical mind that I had to start looking. My wife has a little bit of Indian heritage and has connections in New Delhi and Mumbai. She knew a few people working in charitable organizations working with people on the streets out there. They were giving me updates through 2020 in March, April, and May, when they were saying that everybody in Europe and started to be in America were dying, left, right, and center.

They said that 100 people in New Delhi had died. Now, New Delhi’s got millions and millions of people and most of them are in abject poverty on the streets, living right next to each other tooth to jowl and you just saw 100 deaths right the way through. I think it went up to about 200 deaths in the whole of 2020. When that kind of PR kicked in, then you started getting it shooting off the way.

Contagion Is A Myth

My logical mind went, “That can’t possibly be correct. If this is a transmissible disease where people give it from one person to another and it has to do with staying close to each other and all to do with sanitation and passing from one person to another, every single person in New Delhi should be dead by now.” I went to the core. I started typing into Google. I didn’t know what I was looking for, but I just started typing into Google Scholar “giving people viruses on purpose.”

I just wanted to see the actual causality of putting viruses up people’s noses. “Please just show me. They must have done this.” They had and they failed every time. I kept looking and finding these papers. They kept coming out from left and right. My wife, one of the interesting ones, was, and they did a BBC documentary in the UK. I was midway through looking at all of these failed contagion studies and my wife said, “They’ve done a documentary on it.”

My stomach sank because I’d seen so many that I convinced myself that contagion was a myth, as Tom Cowan puts it. I felt a little bit depressed because it was kind of like, “They have done it.” They did a 45-minute documentary on one of these contagion studies. At the time, the health minister in the UK, Jonathan Van-Tam, was leading this and was the health minister through most of the fake pandemic.

After this 45-minute thing of showing them what they were doing, they were lying them on the back in this hospital in controlled things, and they were putting “influenza” people’s noses on purpose. I thought, “This is it. This is right here,” and they got to the end of the documentary, and I said, “You didn’t tell us how they got on.”

They didn’t say any of the results. They just glistened over that part, so I looked it up. I knew the guy’s name, and so I typed it straight in. Lo and behold, they failed every single person, and this is even worse because they tried to transmit information from person to person. They gave donors it up the nose and then they put these people in with healthy people in the same room next to each other.

They couldn’t even get PCR positives out of the people that they were in quarantine conditions with. That’s a very long-winded answer to the first part of your question of why this matters. It matters a lot because once you realize that the contagion of biological pathogens is a myth, you are that much more free. It takes away the fear. My life has changed immeasurably since I’ve known that my neighbor’s cough or my neighbor’s misplaced sneeze couldn’t kill my children or me.

Once you realize that the contagion of biological pathogens is a myth, you are more free because it removes the fear.

—

Coming up, Jamie, reveals how the core science disproving viruses didn’t exist in published and peer-reviewed papers up until 2022, when a key scientist decided to rectify that situation.

—

Optimal Carnivore. Go over to Amazon and use the code WESTON10 to get 10% off all purchases.

Sacred Hunting. There are only six spots for each hunt, so go to their website and save $250 off the trip just by mentioning the Wise Traditions show.

—

I understand that Dr. Stefan Lanka did experiments years ago. How did that go? Was he able to prove that viruses don’t exist?

Once my curiosity had been satisfied with contagion, the whole of 2020 was predicated on this PCR test. It was a PCR scam where people were ramping up the numbers of supposed illnesses, and then people were dying, left, right, and center in car crashes or bungee jumps. They were PCR testing them at the bottom and going, “It was COVID that killed him and not the snapped rope.”

This was the two-pronged attack, which was understanding that contagion was a myth but then trying to undo the political side of it, which is all based around PCR and genetics. The core science that I had to go back to didn’t exist in published and peer-reviewed papers because they weren’t doing a lot of the science that was being done.

Essentially, what is a control study? Where you take the elements of the experiment that you have and don’t specifically put the independent variable in. If you are creating the observed effect, then you have falsified the experiment. I stumbled across Stefan Lanka. He was doing interviews at that time in ’21 and ’22. He released the controlled experiments that he was doing at the start of 2022.

The Current Understanding Of Virology

I think he delayed them for a while, but he did just that. He did a cell culture isolation. He also did a full genetic sequencing of it in his mysterious paper number two, which has a shroud of mystery around it because he never published it. He also employed a mathematician from Hamburg who looked at the probabilities by comparing genetic sequences and the alignment methods about whether it was statistically possible to construct genomes out of essential parts of the human genome. Also, it was not possible to construct even the original SARS-CoV-2 genome, and so on and so forth.

The parts that he did do were himself was the cell culture isolation, where he took the raw materials of what they used for SARS-CoV-2, which was the Vero E6 cell. He reduced the fetal bovine serum to 2% and waited six days, which was the time they took to observe the cytopathic effect in the seminal isolation paper by Zu, et al. Lo and behold, he showed that these cell lines were dying and thus falsified that initial cell culture.

He showed the cell cultures. He published them on his own website, Wissenschaft, but unfortunately, they were only published in German. Again, that, to me, was like a light bulb moment. It’s irrelevant when you understand that the contagion of biological pathogens is a myth whether viruses exist or not. However, just purely for the question of creating political mayhem through PCR, it’s incredibly important or force childhood vaccinations or forcing vaccinations in general if no threat exists. That is why I started to look at that area and became so interested in Stefan Lanka’s work.

 

What was the response of the scientific community to this work?

It fell fairly flat for a few reasons. It was because he didn’t publish it particularly out into the world. He covered it in a few interviews, but it was buried on his website. I think there weren’t very many rebuttals at all. I’ve read two vaguely, and I won’t say detailed rebuttals because they just seem to say the same points a lot of times from a chap called Frank Viser and Thomas Baldwin.

Both of them said the same thing, which was his cells were overgrown. If you keep the cells in the fetal bovine serum for too long, then they can keep growing out to the edge of the Petri dish until you get full confluence. When they’re overgrown, they tend to starve each other out because the cells are pushing against each other and they starve the perimeter cells around them.

You get a death that’s formed by the overgrowing of the cells. Now, they claim that he did that. How they could tell, I’m not entirely sure because it’s done on looks. You don’t have an overarching view of the Petri dish. When you see the 10% fetal bovine serum, it’s just a snapshot of what it is. I don’t particularly agree with their synopsis, but that was the synopsis that they had.

Jamie, I know that you, along with Alec Zeck, Jacob Diaz, and some others, are involved in a project where you hope to put an end to virology. Where are you going to pick up where Stefan Lanka left off?

I desperately wanted to see this mysterious paper, too. That, to me, was the end of it. I was looking around and asking loads of people. I have it from good authority that he was working with a friend of his who was a geneticist who did the test, the whole genome sequencing. When she saw the results, she was so flabbergasted that they managed to construct the genomes of about 4 or 5 different viruses out of a culture that couldn’t possibly have contained a virus.

She was so shocked that she said, “Please, don’t publish it.” That’s what I’ve heard. Is it mythology? I’m not sure, but I set out this fire in me to go find people. Go and crowdsource and crowdfund this project, which is looking to not only replicate the work of Stefan Lanka but also go much further into the most comprehensive virological controlled study ever done.

We have completed two parts of that already, which has been the cell culture isolation, where we have taken a different approach but a more rigorous approach by taking different cell lines. Now, the Vero E6 cell line is a little bit easier to break down a monkey’s kidney cell line, and it’s from a monkey. It’s nothing to do with humans. We gave ourselves a bit of a higher hurdle to try and jump to steelman[Ma8]  with the results that we were getting. Not only that, we did the experiment twelve times in over 90 cultures, and we received a cytopathic effect in every single one of those more than 90 cultures.

Just to make it simple again, you, without inserting a supposed virus, got results that most virologists would say show the presence of a virus.

Correct. We also had an objective verification with that because we’re looking to take the objections to Stefan Lanka’s project and incorporate them into our own. Also, because this is a live project, it is ongoing, and there are more and more people joining in. We’re also using CROs or research organizations that we’re commissioning to do our work for us. It’s not like we’re doing it in-house. We’re outsourcing this to accredited microbiology labs.

I think that piece is important, Jamie, because otherwise, don’t they say that if a scientist comes in to do an experiment and he has a preconceived notion of what the outcome should be he’s influencing and making it happen that way?

That’s right. I’ve worked very closely with a few seasoned microbiologists and geneticists for 30 years in the labs, and they both say the same thing. It was interesting for me as a layman to ask about their day-to-day procedure. What they all echo is that the way it works is that the commission comes in and they know where they want to be with what they’re doing with their results. They know what their results should look like and work their methodology up to it.

If what they’re doing fails, they don’t see that as a failed experiment. They see it just as “I need to change something to get the results that I need to get.” I think most people don’t see that as bad science. Whereas from a layman’s point of view, as a member of the public, you look at that and go, “Are you sure what you’re doing is correct?”

If what the scientists are doing fails, they don’t see that as a failed experiment. They change something to get the results they need to get, and most people don’t see that as bad science.

It gets into some of the more frightening areas of genetics where they will actively admit that when people are forensically tested, for instance, most geneticists want to know who they think the perpetrator is, and a lot to do with the perpetrator before they conduct the test. As a group, forensic geneticists do not want to do it blind, which is quite eye-opening because you are opening yourself up to so much bias towards finding the results you want. That’s quite into the weeds with this thing.

What I’m picturing right now, Jamie, is a lineup of suspects and it’s like you want to say guilty before proven innocent instead of the other way around. In other words, they’re looking to identify something. They have an idea of what they want it to be, they know how they want the study, or they experiment to conclude so they’re steering in that direction without proper evidence. Also, even when the evidence is pointing in another direction, they’re still saying that one’s the culprit.

That’s right, and they are working from the information that they’re given. When you see how many moving parts there are to a lot of these protocols and how big the Overton window is with what they’re doing on a day-to-day basis. Also, you realize how much they can affect the results and that they’re just bending the ones that don’t give them the right results, then you can see how these biased results are coming out in terms of lots of things like PCR, genetics, cell cultures, practically the whole virology. As I said, we’ve done that with cell culture with this project.

My question is, Jamie, there have been the Spanish flu of the 1800s and these different pandemics supposedly over the years. Why hasn’t this been done before? Why didn’t some of those people try to prove contagion? I think even with the Spanish flu, they tried to make some other soldiers who weren’t sick, sick, and they couldn’t do it. Why weren’t the scientists then being like, “Maybe this isn’t contagion after all?” I don’t understand.

In terms of the pharma complex, there’s a trillion-dollar vaccine industry based on it. It is quite difficult for people involved to back out of it. Why other people haven’t challenged it? Back in the Spanish flu days, they didn’t know what they were talking about. I think they described it as a bacillus, a kind of bacteria that was going on, and they were separating it with cheesecloth and things like that, thinking that it would filter out some of this viral agent.

They hadn’t “isolated” the virus. It’s only been until 1954 since John Enders that they’ve got into the weeds with all of these further protocols. When you look at the foundational science leading up to that, the reason why they have gone down these fantasy roads in terms of trying to find with all of these divining stick type tea leaf reading type experiments such as antibodies, PCR, and genetics, is because they couldn’t prove contagion back then.

There’s No Isolation Of The Bird Flu Virus

In most of the contagion studies, the real core body of work was happening at the start of the 20th century. At the end of the 19th century at the start of the 20th century, they were just like the Rosenau studies with the Spanish flu, but they were doing it with everything like polio and smallpox. Later on, HIV, measles, chicken pox, and all of these types of things. Those are the go-to studies because they were quite “barbaric” with what they were doing.

Most contagion studies, the real core body of work, were happening at the start of the 20th century or the end of the 19th century.

It was taking as much fluid from diseased people and trying desperately to rub it into all orifices to generate it, but fortunately, it failed. They stopped doing that, and it gave them the opportunity to obfuscate the truth by saying that they had this thing in a vial. They were saying that this viral agent in a vial since 1954 and that they now conduct all of the contagion studies where, as I mentioned before, just like this influenza, a contagion study done by Jonathan Van-Tam, the results, he says, they all got PCR positive. None of them got sick, but they got PCR positive.

They can write down in their peer review paper, “We’ve seen transmission. We’ve seen this.” Again, that’s how people get confused that they see millions upon millions of papers saying, “It’s for dead certain that this happened,” but you wouldn’t class it on just a PCR if PCR is not symptomatic and diagnostic, which is not. Why have people not done this? It’s only in the last 50 or 70 years that it’s even been around, but I think that it’s important to unstitch this science.

I see that because, as you said, if a contagion is disproved and the existence of a virus is disproved, then we suddenly have freedom and can shore up our health in ways that serve us as opposed to having to bow to the pharmaceutical companies who have the latest cure for a disease that they’ve created. Speaking of this brings to mind Dr. Tom Cowan who wrote a small book called Breaking the Spell.

I wonder, Jamie, if we’ll be able to break the spell that’s over the public because even if you have success, and it’s very clear that there were holes in virology for the past 50, 70 years, and suddenly viruses we see don’t exist. I’m afraid the public will remain persuaded otherwise, making me worry about the outcome. Is this a losing game on some level?

Reforming The Scientific Process

Not at all. I see this as a positive thing in a bit of a masochistic way. I’m glad that 2020 happened. For my own benefit, I saw and read the books and I found out that contagion was a myth. I reiterate that my life and my children’s lives have changed for the better once I found out that knowledge. Not only that but there are also a number of people who have awakened and had that wake-up call to find out about their own health and move in the right direction of decentralization. This is the point of the project that I’m running.

 

The reason why I think and I’m extremely optimistic about this project and about what we will achieve. We’ve already achieved amazing results with the amount of feedback and the number of people who have gotten on board with this project. There are over 100 people involved in this project already pushing in all different directions all bringing something different to the table. This is what I’m launching and proposing, which is a different way of conducting and doing science, which is to empower people from the bottom up rather than the top down.

I’ll say this in a way. I don’t want to have this published even though we could. This science has been conducted by CROs. It’s legitimate science that we’re commissioning, and I have crowdfunded all of it. I’ve gone out, I’ve posted and people want to know the truth, and this is the unmitigated truth. From the scientists who are accredited and are bringing you that kind of hierarchy, I wouldn’t want this published. I’m running this project in a different way, and I call it Science 2.0.

It’s a science for people. A decentralized science like Bitcoin is to cash or Bitcoin is to central banking because what we’re doing is when you read virology papers, for instance, they have gone so far away from the remit of what science should be about. They don’t include any methodology for control, for instance. They may say they do one, but more often than not, they don’t even mention that they do a control, which is a standard part of science.

If you read the methodology for most of these science papers, you would be none the wiser. As laymen, even laboratory technicians, they often couldn’t replicate the papers that they had. What I’m doing with this project is that I’m going further than any virology paper has ever done, which is to video the methodology of these labs doing these cell cultures.

Every single part of this is videotaped and documented because a lot of the things that we get is, “Your cell cultures were contaminated.” Supposedly contaminated with apparently HIV, measles, and SARS-CoV-2, which we found in uninoculated cultures in transmission electron microscopy. What’s the likelihood of that? I think it’s a fair call for people’s logical mind to say, “What are the things that could go wrong with this?”

I welcome with this project people’s logical and inquisitive mind. The way that virology works and the way that the halls of virology work are top-down methods. What happens is Albert Baller, who’s a trained vet. He has nothing to do with health, but he employs essentially CROs to find his science from the top down. He does it behind closed doors, and the science that they generate, he dictates and says from on high what it should be.

We, as laymen, have no input into that whatsoever. The project that I’m running is a live project to take people into the labs to go, “This is exactly what happens. This is how we know that there isn’t contamination because this is a flow hood. We do all of the experiments inside a flow hood. It has a HEPA filter, so it removes all of the possibility of pathogens in it. This is where we buy the cell lines from. It’s from the ATCC, which guarantees that they’re non-contaminated. We buy them non-contaminated and sterile. We take them out here. This is us undoing these things in the flow hood with sterilized gloves on.

As they say, you’re doing a very transparent process that people can become a part of, ask questions, and observe. I think it’s phenomenal. I want to talk with you more about this, but we have to come to a close. We might have to do part three of this series on the bird flu and viruses. We’ll figure that out, Jamie.

I know you were just starting to roll a little bit, so I apologize for interrupting you, but you’ve given us enough to what our appetite. Now, I want to pose the question I would love to pose at the end to you. If the reader could only do one thing to improve their health, it might not be related to this topic or it might be, what would you recommend that they do?

There is no fear of contagion. It’s a big one. Just hug your neighbor and the sick children. They need a kiss when they’re detoxing and that’s it. There is no fear of contagion, so go find out for yourself. That’s the big one.

No fear of contagion.

Beautiful words to end on. Thank you so much, Jamie. It’s been a pleasure. I look forward to our next conversation.

—

Our guest was Jamie Andrews. Visit his Substack to learn more. Also, you can find me at Holistic Hilda. Now, for a letter to the editor from the Spring 2024 Wise Traditions Journal. “I’m writing to let readers of the Wise Traditions Journals know that they have the ability to opt out of TSA pictures taken when boarding a flight. Over Thanksgiving, I was in Atlanta getting ready to board an international flight. The gate agent made an announcement saying, ‘The machine taking the pictures is very sensitive, and you must hold still for the machine to work.’”

“I walked up to the gate agent and said, ‘I don’t want my picture taken.’ The agent said, ‘No problem. You can just use your boarding pass.’ I was stunned. Hundreds of people were getting their pictures taken at every gate, and no one even questioned it. I then started walking around to different groups preparing to board and loudly advised other passengers to opt out.”

“When returning to the US, I flew into JFK. There was a huge long line for customs and a much shorter line for mobile passport control, which allows eligible travelers to submit their travel documents, photos, and customs declaration information through a free secure app on their smartphone or other mobile devices. When I finally got to the customs agent, the agent wanted to take a picture and I said I didn’t want the picture taken.”

“The agent said I could opt out, but I’d need to follow the policeman to a waiting area, which I did. The policeman took my passport and, I guess, checked me out, and then I was allowed through customs. I have to wonder whether my non-compliance or refusal to participate makes a difference. I recognize the threat of the control system, but aren’t we already a part of it when we get a driver’s license and passport? I welcome any insight on this subject.”

This is a letter from Raymer from Jacksonville, Florida. Thank you for your letter. Often, we don’t even know what our options are so I appreciate you saying something. I travel quite a bit, so it’s especially important for me to opt out of the scanners and from taking pictures whenever I can. You can also write us a letter to the editor. Just write us at Info@WestonAPrice.org and in the subject line, put Letter to the Editor.

Write us on the subject of your choice, knowing that members of the Weston A. Price Foundation rely on each other to continue growing, learning, changing, and shaping our health today and tomorrow. Thank you so much for reading, my friend. Stay well. Remember to keep your feet on the ground and your face to the sun.

 

About Jamie Andrews

For the past year Jamie has been Project Managing The most Comprehensive Control Experiments of the Virological Methodology ever conducted. Together with 100 researchers,health practitioners and seasoned MicroBiologists and Genetecists Jamie has contracted and worked with numerous CROs with the goal of falsifying the protocols which claim to provide proof of the existence of viruses. For more info and results please visit https://substack.com/@controlstudies

 

Important Links

• Jamie’s Substack account
• Info@WestonAPrice.org

 

Sponsor Links

• Optimal Carnivore
• Sacred Hunting

🖨️ Print post