A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus. Sometimes a non-virulent strain is used in the mock-infected specimen.”
A control in science is an element that remains unchanged or the same throughout the experiment. They allow for the experimentor to minimize the variables to the one that is being tested. There can be more than one kind of control used to ensure that all variables are accounted for. With the cell culture experiments performed in virology, the control culture, often referred to as the mock infected culture, is supposed to be treated in the same manner as the infected culture yet without the “virus” material present. This is supposed to show that the “virus” is the only variable that could be the cause of whatever effect is being studied and observed.
The problem for virology is that they do not have a proper independent variable (i.e. purified and isolated particles) to use in order to determine cause and effect. There are numerous substances said to be contained within the sample taken from a sick host including host materials, bacteria, fungus, multivesicular bodies, exosomes, other “viruses,” etc. The sample is always added to “viral” transport media which itself contains antibiotics, antifungals, fetal bovine serum, and other nutrients/chemicals. This sample is then added to an abnormal cell, usually from an animal such as an African green monkey, or from a cancer cell of some sort. The chosen cell has itself been cultured while out of its natural environment in unnatural media for an extended period of time. Before the culture experiments have even begun, there are numerous variables that can potentially be the cause of any observed effect created through experimentation. Thus, it is very important for virologists to perform proper controls to ensure that the results are valid and are in fact caused by their independent variable rather than a creation from their own experimental methods.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in virology. What is most often found in these papers, if found at all, is the mock-infected culture, which again is where they will take whatever cell line is chosen for the experiment and apply the same(?) compounds to it without the unpurified human sample. Sadly, it is often not clear exactly how the mock-infected culture was treated or if one was ever performed. However, even if done as described, is this a proper control which factors in all potential variables? No, absolutely not. The only way it would possibly be a proper control is if the virologists started with only the purified/isolated particles assumed to be the “virus” as the independent variable used for experimentation. As they do not do so, the unpurified human sample already has many host and foreign materials present along with many others added to it which need to be factored into the equation as potential causes of any observed effect. Thus, using only a cell without a human sample is not a proper control when an unpurified sample without isolated particles is utilized to try and prove cause and effect. In order to have a proper control, the virologists would need to use samples from both healthy humans and those who are sick with similar symptoms but said not to have the assumed “virus.” Ex-virologist Stefan Lanka summed this up brilliantly in his seminal paper The Misconception called Virus:
Virologists believe in viruses, because they add to the tissue and cell culture allegedly infected blood, saliva or other body fluids-after having withdrawn the nutrients from the respective cell culture and after having started poisoning it with toxic antibiotics. They believe that the cell culture is then killed by viruses. However, the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to the scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation”, in order to see whether it was not the method itself causing or falsifying the result, the scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell culture.
These control experiments have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected”
The purpose of control experiments is to exclude the posibility that it is the applied method or technique which may cause the result. Control experiments are the highest duty in science and also the exclusive basis of claiming that one’s conclusion is scientific. During the measles virus trial it was the legally appointed expert who stated that the papers which are crucial for the entire virology contain no control experiments. We learn from this that the respective scientists work extremely unscientifically, without noticing it.”
-Ex Virologist Dr. Stefan Lankahttps://archive.org/download/dr-stefan-lanka-the-misconception-called-virus/Dr%20Stefan%20Lanka%20-%20The%20Misconception%20Called%20Virus%20%28Jan%202020%29_text.pdf
What would happen if virologists actually performed proper controls? What would they observe happening in their petri dishes? What kind of particles would they find upon electron microscopy examination of their cultured creations? While virologists may not want to perform the proper controls necessary to validate their own findings, we have a few sources where some form of control was carried out. What they showed is that, when these controls are performed, the entire cell culture process and virology itself is completely invalidated as the same particles and effects are observed even in the absence of “viral” material.
Control # 1: John Franklin Enders 1954 Measles Paper
In 1954, John Franklin Enders ushered in the era of the cell culture experiments in virology after virologists repeatedly failed to isolate their filterable “viruses” (translated from German):
However, these experiments failed to produce growth of the filterable virus. In the hope that various animal experiments have also been carried out to trigger virulence of filter-passing virus carried out. But the results were always negative. It never succeeded from the filtrates by renewed inoculation on the various culture substrates a filterable microbe (“a true filter-passing virus”).” – Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Frühgeschichte der Virologie, Sonderdruck 125, 89 Seiten, 1999. i. K. (A 2)https://impfen-nein-danke.de/u/P125.pdf
Enders cell culture technique established in his 1954 measles paper is essentially the exact same process carried out today in order to “isolate” any “virus.” It consisted of culturing the human sample along with a mixture of many added chemicals and foreign substances.
Interestingly, Enders did do a version of the control procedure other virologists are supposed to carry out when performing these kinds of experiments. In an uninoculated monkey kidney cell cultured in the same way as the sample supposedly containing the measles “virus,” Enders observed the exact same cytopathogenic effect in the cell culture that he and others attributed to “viruses:”
“Monkey kidney cultures may, therefore, be applied to the study of these agents in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In so doing, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue (cf. last paragraph under G) or by unknown factors.”
“A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind.”
Sadly, even though Enders found that the same effect can be observed without “virus” material present in the culture, his confirmation bias led him to conclude that there must have been some other “virus” or agent in his culture which lead to the death of the cell rather than occurring as a result of the cell culture procedure itself. Fortunately, he was not the only one to observe this phenomena in uninoculated cultures:
Control # 2: Stefan Lanka’s Phase One Controls
Recently, Dr. Stefan Lanka himself has taken on the challenge of performing the cell culture controls that send virologists cowering in fear. In essence, he performed the exact same cell culture steps without the added “viral” material and was able to produce the exact same cytopathogenic effect Enders and other’s noticed in their uninoculated cultures by manipulating the additives, thus disproving this effect as due to any “virus.” You can find a good breakdown of the methods utilized here with an English translation:
Kontrollexperiment Phase 1 – Mehrere Labore bestätigen die Widerlegung der Virologie durch den cytopathischen Effekt
If you would like to hear Dr. Lanka speak about the controls in a short 7 min clip, you can view that here:
However, my favorite explanation comes from Dr. Tom Cowan’s excellent booklet Breaking The Spell:
“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.
In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.
In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.
The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. This included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.
The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”
Control # 3: Exosome Research
In the early 1980’s, researchers working with cell cultures of reticulocytes (slightly immature red blood cells) found small 40-150 nm vesicles in their electron microscopy images. Even though they were not working with “viral” material in their cultures, the researchers found particles that were the same size, shape, and density as “viral” particles. While the particles were originally thought to be cellular debris and/or garbage bags, they were assigned a theoretical function related to intercellular communication. Even though the vesicles were indistinguishable from “viral” particles, they were eventually given the name exosomes:
“30 years ago, a paper in JCB (Harding, Heuser and Stahl, 1983) and one in Cell (Pan and Johnstone, 1983)—published within a week of each other—reported that, in reticulocytes, transferrin receptors associated with small ∼50 nM vesicles are literally jettisoned from maturing blood reticulocytes into the extracellular space. The name “exosome” for these extracellular vesicles was coined a few years later by Rose Johnstone, although the term had in fact been used a few years earlier, when referring to other membrane fragments isolated from biological fluids (Trams et al., 1981; the term “exosome complex” has also been used for a totally different entity: namely, the intracellular particle involved in RNA editing [Mitchell et al., 1997]).”
What has occurred since the discovery of these “virus-like” particles is a blurring of the lines between two sets of disciplines (exosome/virology) using the same particles as a representation for their chosen fictional entity. As the decades progressed, exosomes have become even more “virus-like,” to the point that they are now said to carry “viral” proteins and materials and can infect cells:
“Virus-infected cells release exosomes that are implicated in infection through transferring viral components such as viral-derived miRNAs and proteins. As well, exosomes contain receptors for viruses that make recipient cells susceptible to virus entry.”
Going through the major exosome papers of the 1980’s shows that the exact same cell culture procedures and experiments were being done without “viral” material present yet the same exact “virus-like” particles as seen in virology were still being found. In the early research papers, materials from animals were mostly used. However, eventually samples from healthy humans were cultured and shown to contain these “virus-like” particles. In other words, the exosome researchers were carrying out the control cultures which showed that the methods produced the results as no “virus” was necessary.
In this pivotal exosome study from 1983, sheep reticulocytes were cultured in various ways (the process was outlined in previous papers). They were incubated for 36 hours and eventually “separated” from the culture medium. The vesicles with “surface knobs” that were observed looked very reminiscent of a certain group of “coronaviruses:”
Fate of the transferrin receptor during maturation of sheep reticulocytes in vitro: selective externalization of the receptor
“Using sheep reticulocytes, surface-labeled with ‘251, we observed that the amount of ‘251-labeled plasma membrane protein precipitated with the specific anti-transferrin-receptor antibody decreases with time in culture in parallel with the loss of reticulum (Pan, Blostein, and Johnstone, 1983). These data suggested that the receptor might be removed from the plasma membrane. To test this possibility the cell surface was labeled with ‘251 and lactoperoxidase (Reichstein and Blostein, 1975) and the cells were incubated for 36 hr at 37°C. Initially, and after 36 hr, the cells were separated from the incubation medium. Plasma membranes were prepared (Dodge et al., 1963) and solubilized, and the solubilized membranes and cell-free postincubation medium were passed through an anti-transferrin-receptor immunoaffinity column as described (Pan, Blostein, and Johnstone, 1983).”
In this study from 1985, once again sheep reticulocytes were cultured in various ways previously outlined over many prior studies. It showed that long-term incubation in culture created the smaller particles observed in electron microscopy images. It can be seen in the bottom image description that 1% bovine serum albumin and PBS were added as well as fresh culture medium before imaging. The process observed in the EM image is said to be exocytosis, which has been claimed to be the particles emerging from the cell to transport information. However, is exocytosis being observed or could it be “viral” particles entering the cell through endocytosis? The interpretation is in the eye of the beholder:
Electron microscopic evidence for externalization of the transferrin receptor in vesicular form in sheep reticulocytes
“In the present study using an immunological approach, we have obtained visual evidence that the MVEs are the penultimate structures from which the transferrin receptor appears to be released during long-term incubation of sheep reticulocytes. The data show the changing nature of the intracellular structures that contain transferrin receptors during long-term incubation and that ultimately, small bodies with the transferrin receptor at the external surface are released.”
In this 1986 study, it is admitted that many different types of cultures release these exact same particles into the culture medium. These consisted of cultured brain cells including C6 glioma and two cell lines of mouse neuroblastoma, B16 mouse melanoma cells, and calcifying cartilage in the long bone of fetal calves where matrix vesicles can be released by collagenase treatment. The researchers in this study cultured rat glioma cells which were obtained at passage 39, HeLa cells cultured with 5 mM sodium butyrate, and Friend erythroleukemia cells grown in suspension. You can see that similar cell culture techniques used in virology were utilized in this paper to create the same particles:
Exfoliation of the/3-adrenergic receptor and the regulatory components of adenylate cyclase by cultured rat glioma C6 cell
“It has recently been observed that some cultured cell lines release packets of material into the medium that appear to be derived from the plasma membrane. Trams et al.  found that several cultured brain cells including C6 glioma and two cell lines of mouse neuroblastoma release particles of 500-1000 nm in diameter which contain 5′- nucleotidase and a divalent cation-activated ATPase. They also observed the release of cell-surface 5′-nucleotidase into the culture medium from astroblast, fibroblast and melanoma cell lines.
Others had previously demonstrated that B16 mouse melanoma cells shed plasma membrane-derived vesicles into the medium . A similar phenomenon occurs in calcifying cartilage in the long bone of fetal calves where matrix vesicles can be released by collagenase treatment .”
“Cell Culture. Rat glioma cells were obtained at passage 39 from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, Maryland) and grown as described previously [12,14]. HeLa cells, strain 30002 , were cultured with 5 mM sodium butyrate [15,16] and treated with (-)-isoproterenol to down-regulate their B-adrenergic receptor . Friend erythroleukemia cells were grown in suspension as previously described .”
Preparation of Exosomes and Membranes. For preparation of exosomes, C6 cells were grown to confluency in 530 cm z NUNC dishes (A/S NUNC, Rochilde, Denmark). 24 h prior to exosome collection, the growth medium was removed and monolayers were rinsed four times over a period of 1.5 h with serum-free medium adjusted to contain 5 mM MgC12 and 2 mM CaCI 2- The cells were cultured in the same medium for 22.5 h. The medium was then collected and centrifuged at 10000 × g for 30 min at 4°C. The supernatant was carefully removed and centrifuged at 65,000 rpm for 90 min using a Beckman Ti 70 rotor. The pellets (exosomes) were washed once with 10 mM Tris-HC1 (pH 7.4) resuspended and homogenized “in the same buffer (0.5 mg of protein per ml) and stored for further analysis in liquid nitrogen. Crude membranes from the different cell lines were prepared as previously described .”
In this 1987 study, we can see that the same exact compounds used in virology were utilized for the creation of exosomes: Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with glutamine (4 mM), adenosine (5 mM), inosine (10 mM), penicillin (200 units/ml), and streptomycin (200 pg/ml) (standard culture medium). While sheep reticulocytes were used for initial culturing and study, the researchers wanted to see if they could find these same particles by culturing mature erythrocytes as well as washed, unfractionated blood cells from phlebotomized sheep and enriched fractions of white cells. Sure enough, they were able to create and find the exact same particles in numerous cultures:
Vesicle formation during reticulocyte maturation. Association of plasma membrane activities with released vesicles (exosomes)
“Reticulocytes were prepared as previously described from phlebotomized sheep (6, 11). Cells were cultured for 24-40 h at 37 “C in roller bottles in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with glutamine (4 mM), adenosine (5 mM), inosine (10 mM), penicillin (200 units/ml), and streptomycin (200 pg/ml) (standard culture medium). Cells were collected by centrifugation at 8,000 X g for 10 min. The cell-free supernatant was recentrifuged for 90 min at 100,000 x g to collect the released vesicles. To assess whether cells other than reticulocytes gave rise to vesicles, washed, mature erythrocytes as well as washed, unfractionated blood cells from phlebotomized sheep and enriched fractions of white cells were cultured. Putative vesicle fractions were collected from all cultures after removal of the cells as described above. The pelleted vesicles were stored at -70 “C until required or used immediately after preparation.
Plasma membranes from reticulocytes and mature cells were prepared by osmotic lysis in 5 mM phosphate buffer, pH 8.0, containing 1 mM EDTA as described (15). The membranes were washed and stored at -70 ‘C in 20 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.0. The membranes were centrifuged before use and resuspended in the appropriate medium as given in the text.”
As can be seen from the above studies, the particles assumed as exosomes were created by the same cell culture process utilized by virologists with materials from healthy animals. No “viral” sample was necessary in order to create the same exact EM images as seen by virologists. I previously discussed how this exosome concept, with an origin tied to the cell culture tricks used in virology, was created. As the same “viral” particles were found in healthy subjects, these results obviously could not stand as it would destroy the very foundation that virology was built upon. Thus, the “virus-like” particles were given a different name and function in order to keep the “virus” lie intact. The exosome became the escape clause for researchers to fall back on so that virology could continue marching ahead unscathed by these contradictory findings.
In fact, it wasn’t until the early 2000’s when exosomes were finally said to be found outside of the cell culturing process. The exosome results up to at least 2005 were only applicable to experiments done in vitro (i.e. outside the living body and in an artificial environment). There was no evidence that these particles existed without the culture process:
“Many cell types release exosomes in vitro but there is still little evidence of whether exosomes are produced in vivo.”
Exosomes are small membrane vesicles mostly secreted by hematopoietic cells in culture medium. In the present work, we show that a population of vesicles sharing characteristics with exosomes can be isolated from the plasma of healthy donors. Differential ultracentrifugations of blood plasma allowed us to purify vesicles similar in size and shape to the previously described exosomes (reviewed in 3). It clearly appeared that blood plasma is very rich in various contaminants from diverse origins.”
It should be clear from these early exosome experiments why this fictitious entity is so closely entwined with the “virus.” It has been repeatedly shown that the same particles claimed to be “viruses” can be found in the supernatant made from cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. It has been stated repeatedly that “viruses,” exosomes, and similar particles can not be separated from each other:
“Exosomes have been the most studied in the context of infection. An important note, however, is that exosome purity was not always analyzed in these studies, and therefore, the vesicle population may have consisted of both exosomes and microvesicles, which overlap in size and density.”https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.201439363
“The fact that exosomes are similar in size, shape, and density to many viruses makes separating exosomes from viruses a veritable challenge.”https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2021.671625/full
This is because the very same particles are being picked as a representation by different researchers as different entities in every single case. It is a fact that exosomes have their origin in the same culture process used by virologists, have the same size/shape/density as “viruses,” and are claimed to have the exact same “viral” proteins/materials as well the ability to hijack cells to create “viruses.” Exosomes are “viruses” and “viruses” are exosomes. Both are fictional entities/concepts used to explain lab-created results in a petri dish. However, if you are not convinced that we are dealing with the same particles created through the same process, maybe these next pieces of information will provide further evidence that it is the method which creates the results seen and not the particles observed afterwards.
In 2019, a study came out claiming that exosomes can, in fact, produce the exact same cytopathogenic effect (i.e. structural changes in host cells that are caused by “viral” invasion) said to be SPECIFIC to “viruses.” While I have gone over CPE before and shown that it can be caused by many factors related to the culture conditions, virologists still use it as the evidence a “virus” is present in the sample. Granted, sometimes they will claim a “virus” is present even without observing CPE but that is another article entirely. In any case, exosomes can now be added to the long list of factors other than a “virus” which can induce this effect, thus blurring the line between these “distinct entities” even further. And once again, we can see the exact same “virus-like” particles were found in both the “uninfected” and the “infected” cell culture EM images:
Exosomes Carry microRNAs into Neighboring Cells to Promote Diffusive Infection of Newcastle Disease Virus
Exosomes Isolated from NDV-Infected HeLa Cells Cause a Cytopathic Effect
“Several studies have shown that exosomes are involved in virus infections. However, the effect that exosomes have on NDV-infected tumor cells is not known. In this study, we focus on the role of exosomes secreted by NDV-infected HeLa cells in promoting NDV replication. Three miRNA candidates (miR-1273f, miR-1184, and miR-198) embraced by exosomes were associated with enhancing NDV-induced cytopathic effects on HeLa cells.”
“These results confirm that the pellets from NDV-infected and naive HeLa cells were exosomes, and thus, these samples were prepared for further study. HeLa cells were incubated with these particles for 24 h and then infected with NDV to observe the cytopathic effects. To our surprise, the cytopathic effect was significantly observed in cells treated with exosomes from NDV-infected cells (Figure 2D).”
In October 2019, another study looking at exosomes released from Acanthamoeba castellanii also found that the exosomes induced a cytopathogenic effect in the cells:
Quantitative proteomic analysis and functional characterization of Acanthamoeba castellanii exosome-like vesicles
“To examine whether EVs of A. castellanii also lead to cytotoxic effects on C6 cells, the CPE of C6 cells was evaluated after co-culture with EVs from A. castellanii for 24 h. The data showed that C6 cells markedly detached from the culture plates after coincubation with EVs from A. castellanii compared with the PBS-treated control, suggesting that parasite-derived EVs destroyed the adhesive ability of target cells and caused cell death (Fig. 3a). Time-lapse microscopy analysis also revealed that the C6 cells were more spherical and cytolytic following exposure to EVs from A. castellanii (Fig. 3b).”
“It has been demonstrated that A. castellanii EVs display cytotoxicity to Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) and T98G mammalian cells via necrosis and apoptosis, respectively, suggesting that different cell death mechanisms are induced by EVs in various host cells [33, 35]. We also showed that EVs cause cell disruption and reduce cell adhesion ability, resulting in CPE on rat glial C6 cells, which is similar to the outcome exerted by the secreted proteins .”
- A control in science is an element that remains unchanged or the same throughout the experiment and it allows for the experimentor to control the variables
- Virology sometimes uses mock-infected cultures where two specimens are used: one that is infected with the “virus/vector” of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the “virus”
- According to ex-virologist Stefan Lanka:
- The death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all
- The scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell culture
- These control experiments have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day
- The purpose of control experiments is to exclude the posibility that it is the applied method or technique which may cause the result
- Control experiments are the highest duty in science and also the exclusive basis of claiming that one’s conclusion is scientific
- Control # 1: In 1954, John Franklin Enders, creator of the cell culture technique still used by virologists today, disproved his own methods:
- Cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other “viral” agents present in the monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors
- A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells
- The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the “viruses” isolated from measles
- Control #2: Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing, consisted of four controls:
- In control 1, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics – no CPE by day 5
- In control 2, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium – no CPE by day 5
- In control 3, this included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration – CPE was observed by day 5
- In control 4, yeast RNA was added and this produced the same result as control 3, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a “virus”—that is causing the CPE
- Control # 3: In the early 1980’s, researchers working with cell cultures of reticulocytes (slightly immature red blood cells) found small 40-150 nm “viral-like” particles in their electron microscopy images without “viral” material present
- In 1983, “coronavirus-like” particles were found in cell cultures of sheep reticulocytes
- In 1985, the same particles were seen after long incubation periods in EM images
- In 1986, numerous cell cultures were admitted to produce the same particles:
- Cultured brain cells including C6 glioma and two cell lines of mouse neuroblastoma
- B16 mouse melanoma cells
- Rat glioma cells which were obtained at passage 39
- HeLa cells cultured with 5 mM sodium butyrate
- Friend erythroleukemia cells grown in suspension
- In 1987, the same particles were seen in mature erythrocytes as well as washed, unfractionated blood cells from phlebotomized sheep and enriched fractions of white cells and the same culture ingredients were described:
- Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with glutamine
- In a 2005 study, it was admitted that many cell types release exosomes in vitro (in the lab) but there was still little evidence of whether exosomes are produced in vivo (in the body)
- Exosomes are small membrane vesicles mostly secreted by hematopoietic cells in culture medium
- It clearly appeared that blood plasma is very rich in various contaminants from diverse origins
- Exosomes have been the most studied in the context of infection, however, exosome purity was not always analyzed in these studies, and therefore, the vesicle population may have consisted of both exosomes and microvesicles which overlap in size and density
- The fact that exosomes are similar in size, shape, and density to many “viruses” makes separating exosomes from “viruses” a veritable challenge
- In a June 2019 study, exosomes isolated from NDV-infected HeLa cells cause a cytopathic effect
- Several studies have shown that exosomes are involved in “virus” infections
- Three miRNA candidates (miR-1273f, miR-1184, and miR-198) embraced by exosomes were associated with enhancing NDV-induced cytopathic effects on HeLa cells the cytopathic effect was significantly observed in cells treated with exosomes from NDV-infected cells
- In a October 2019 study, the researchers examined whether EVs of A. castellanii also lead to cytotoxic effects on C6 cells, the CPE of C6 cells was evaluated after co-culture with EVs from A. castellanii for 24 h
- The data showed that C6 cells markedly detached from the culture plates after coincubation with EVs from A. castellanii compared with the PBS-treated control, suggesting that parasite-derived EVs destroyed the adhesive ability of target cells and caused cell death
- The researchers showed that EVs cause cell disruption and reduce cell adhesion ability, resulting in CPE on rat glial C6 cells
Proper controls are essential in order to ensure that the results obtained in a scientific experiment were actually caused by the variable being studied and were not a creation stemming from the methods employed. If virologists were to carry out proper controls on their cell culture experiments, they would easily see that the very methods they use are creating the effects they want to observe. Fortunately, there are instances where controls were performed by researchers both in and outside of virology which absolutely show that the exact same “virus” particles can be found in cell cultures without any “virus” material ever being present. From John Franklin Enders invalidating his own cell culture technique in his 1954 measles paper to the numerous examples of researchers finding the same “virus-like” particles in materials from healthy animals in exosome research, the evidence shows that it is the cell culture process, and not the “virus” material, which creates the desired effect.
Sadly, this realization was not taken up by the scientific community. Rather than admitting that the cell culture method and the conclusions drawn are flawed, a whole new off-shoot of research was created around a new theoretical entity in exosomes. As time has passed, exosomes have incorporated even more “viral” characteristics to the point that they are considered “non-infectious viruses.” A January 2019 study pointed out that it is essentially up to the researcher to decide which is which:
“Intermediate particles exist on the spectrum between virus and exosome that contain both host and viral components, making it nearly impossible to classify these vesicles as either defective viruses or exosomes that contain viral components . Intermediate particles are often classified as a virus or exosome derivative, depending on the preference of the investigator, but once these vesicles deviate from strict definitions they may be more accurately defined as an assortment of lipid-encased particles that cannot be easily differentiated .”
What is clear is that the exosome is the perfect escape clause for virology. There is always some sort of rescue device available to the researchers to explain away contradictory results. The exosome researchers, performing the exact same cell culture process as done in virology, found the exact same particles in healthy material. The research completely disproved that “viral” particles are replicating in the petri dishes. Rather, the results showed that the cell culture method destroys the cell causing it to break apart into small pieces. The cellular debris, as exosomes were originally claimed to be, have been picked as representatives for many fictional entities including “viruses” and exosomes. The exosome research should have been the final nail in the coffin for virology. These experiments served as the controls virology is terrified of and will avoid performing. Instead, we have a whole new concept to explain away the contradictions.