Language
Undefined
0
No votes yet
Our control experiments on the cytopathic effect: What even critics are keeping quiet !
https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/343
Telegram Translate:
A shocking fact that all our critics deliberately suppress: While not a single virological publication can demonstrate the necessary controls, our study clearly stands out. Not only did we implement multiple control groups, but we also conducted a meticulous blind inspection.
Background and significance of the cytopathic effect
In virology, the cytopathic effect (CPE) in cell cultures is often cited as irrefutable evidence - a gold standard - of infection, presence, isolation, replication and destructive power of viruses. However, our control experiments have refuted this supposed “gold standard”. Even more alarming: They reveal a massive deficiency in virology as a whole. In all virological publications, these controls were neither carried out nor documented, which not only indicates gross misconduct but also serious misinterpretations. Our data prove that this CPE is caused by the experimental setup itself - without the introduction of a putative virus.
Categorisation of cell cultures
We divided cell cultures into:
- Control 1: Fresh culture medium - as standard control. (optimal condition)
- Control 2: DMEM (culture medium) supplemented with GlutaMAX, FCS and antibiotics.
- Starvation 1: DMEM with reduced FCS (fetal calf serum) and increased antibiotics to simulate nutritional deprivation.
- Starvation 2: Like group 3, but additionally treated with yeast RNA (foreign nucleic acids).
Control groups vs. Starvation
While control groups show the expected cell states under normal conditions, the starvation groups simulate the food deprivation + inoculation of foreign nucleic acids often used in virology.
Morphological changes (CPE) of cell groups
The Starvation groups showed increased cytopathic effects/significant morphological changes, particularly balloon-like cells, from day 1 to 5, in contrast to the control groups. This particularly affected the group treated with yeast RNA.
Blind inspection: Objective review
A blind inspection means that the experimenters inspected the cells without prior knowledge of the experimental conditions (e.g. which group it is). This is done to avoid bias and ensure objective observations. In this study, all cultures were inspected blindly, and the stressed cultures were easily identified due to drastic morphological changes. A hit rate of 100% was achieved in identifying the different groups.
An appeal to the incorrigible critics
It is high time that critics and proponents of outdated virological assumptions opened their eyes and acknowledged the facts. Our comprehensive control experiments have not only disproved the oft-cited "gold standard" of virology, but have also shone a glaring light on the significant shortcomings and misinterpretations in the industry. Adhering to outdated theories and methods that are not only untenable but also potentially harmful is not only scientifically irresponsible but also ethically questionable. It is not only time to accept our findings, but also to bring scientific integrity and responsibility back to the forefront. Become part of the solution, not the problem.
Detailed control experiment study
(German)
https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/praeliminaere-resultate-der-kontrollversuche-2021
Translate feature:
NEXT LEVEL - Knowledge rethought summarizes the control experiments of phase 1 - the so-called cytopathic effect - for them:
1. The effect is not caused - as claimed - by a "virus", but by the experimental setup in vitro itself.
2. The control results confirm that this effect is not VIRUS SPECIFIC and therefore cannot and must not be claimed as evidence of a pathogenic virus
3. We get the central effect (CPE), the death of tissue cells in the test tube, in the same way, without any infected material.
4. The morphological change in cell culture is caused by poisoning and starvation.
5, This cell culture (e.g. B. Vero E6) is virtually poisoned by certain chemicals and antibiotics, at the same time the nutrient solution is taken away from it, it literally "starvees". The "poisoning" is carried out out of the belief that one wants to make sure that no other causes for a desired effect are to be regarded as responsible. The nutrient solution is withdrawn from the cells because they want to make them hungry, so that they absorb the alleged "viruses" better. Unfortunately, it is precisely these two precautions - poisoning and starvation - that are the cause of an effect to occur that is also equated with indirect proof of the isolation, cultivation and destructive power of a pathogenic virus. A fatal IRRTUM!
6. The This effect can even be massively amplified if you e.g. B., as Dr. Stefan Lanka had it carried out in the laboratory,Adds so-called standardized yeast messenger substance (the RNA from yeasts).
7. All control results carried out confirmed that the cause of the so-called cytopathic effect is not a virus, but factors such as the experimental setup are the cause.
8. These control tests have not yet been carried out or documented by all virologists worldwide, until today they are ignored.
9. The virologists do not use the word "isolation" in the true sense of the word isolation. They understand by "isolation" the generation of the cytopathic effect in the laboratory, which they simultaneously as
A) Infection
B) Proof of the presence of a virus
C) Proof of its multiplication
D) Interpret evidence of the destructive power of the assumed virus.
10.The virologists call these dying tissue/cells an isolate, which they then put on the market for approx. 2,000 euros and falsely claim that there is a virus in it. In addition, the virologists claim that they can produce a vaccine from it.