Dr. Stefan Lanka. Dr. Tom Cowan. Dr. Andrew Kaufman. Dr. Sam Bailey. What do these four people, at the forefront of the “No Virus” movement (if we can call it that), have in common besides a tireless quest to present the truth about the fraud of virology? They do not claim to be something or someone that they are not. Each of these doctors have credentials and work experience that can be easily verified. They have all worked hard to gain our trust by being open and honest regarding their professional backgrounds. In spite of this, each of them have had their names run through the mud by mainstream media outlets and alternative news sites in attempts to discredit and debunk their work. Fortunately, these professionals have each been able to stand tall in the face of inaccurate, misleading, and erroneous allegations made against them due to the fact that they all have nothing to hide. While they have each faced the adversity and proven their detractors wrong while coming out stronger for having done so, that does not appear to be the case for relative newcomer Poornima Wagh.
I did not want to write this as I really do believe Poornima Wagh has been through a smoldering ring of fire as of late. Sadly, it is an inferno that she seemingly created for herself through her own actions. In any case, it is not my intent to pour on the metaphorical lighter fluid and fan the flames. However, due to the response that I have seen to the vetting of Poornima, I felt that it was necessary to present the case for why it was imperative that Poornima’s claims and credentials were ultimately verified. I want to also ask those who found themselves under the spell over the last few months to use this unfortunate situation as a much-needed wake-up call in order to re-evaluate those that they view as trustworthy. It is easy, especially during these challenging times, to look for and cling to a savior, the expert in shining armor ready to slay the legendary “viral” beast. When one seemingly steps out from behind the shadows, it is easy to push aside and abandon all critical thought and healthy skepticism in order to latch onto the savior with welcoming and open arms. However, if one takes a moment to step back and view the savior with the same discernment and logic that led them to see through the “viral” delusion in the first place, they will many times see that these saviors are sadly not who they claim to be. Unfortunately, it appears as though this trust that was easily given by many may have been entirely misplaced in Poornima Wagh.
As with Brian Ardis and his snake venom presentation a few months ago, Poornima Wagh burst onto the scene and took the “truther” community by storm in early July with an engaging presentation debunking virology on the Regis Tremblay podcast. Proclaiming herself as a virologist with 2 simultaneous PhD’s (one in virology and the other in immunology) from the prestigious London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Poornima had the impressive credentials which immediately made people take notice and listen. It didn’t hurt that Poornima also announced that she led a monumental study that contained the very evidence needed to not only prove “SARS-COV-2” did not exist but also that virology and germ theory were a complete fraud. She also promised future presentations debunking PCR, masks, and the vaccines as well. A dual PhD virologist seemingly coming out from nowhere with the very evidence needed to shut down this lie once and for all almost seemed to be too good to be true.
Poornima did deliver on the promise of the follow-up slide-show presentations. In fact, a lot of the information that Poornima presented during her three appearances on the Regis Tremblay show was factual and did a great job illustrating the faults in germ theory, virology, and the health response to this “pandemic.” She shared information from many sources, including some of my own, which makes this a very difficult article for me to write. While there were many truths in the information Poornima shared, there were certain elements that stood out from a factual and scientific standpoint that undermined her credibility as someone with dual PhD’s in virology/immunology and 20 years of lab experience. While I do not want to belabor technical errors as I am sure I make them myself (granted, I do not claim to be a virologist), there were erroneous statements made by Poornima about methods used by virologists which she should have known better than to make.
As a quick example, during her most recent presentation with Dr Wai-Ching Lee, Poornima made two alarming statements related to the cell culture process that a person with her position and experience should not make. She claimed in this slide under # 2 that both Vero cells and HeLa cells are cultured together with the lung fluid taken from a sick patient:
This is false as different cell lines (such as monkey kidney cells and human cervical cancer cells) are never mixed together with the lung fluid and then cultured.
In the following slide with # 4, she stated that trypsin is added during the culturing process:
This is another erroneous claim as trypsin is used after the cell culturing process takes place in order to detach the cells from the cell culture flask, often in the case of passaging the cells to a fresh vessel. Trypsin is not added in during the actual culturing of the “virus.”
There were other errors and questionable statements that Poornima made throughout her interviews and presentations that raised red flags for many of us watching on the sidelines. As I said, it is not my intent to pile on Poornima regarding these points. However, they were ultimately crucial as they served as evidence to us that Poornima may not hold the required credentials and experience that she claimed to possess. Due to these growing questions and concerns, it was felt that it was time to address these issues with Poornima in order to properly vet her.
Missing PhD’s and Thesis
As can be seen by Wagh’s statement, she openly invited anyone doubting her credentials to verify her claims by calling the colleges she said she had attended for themselves. That is exactly what investigative journalist Eric Coppolino did after a 45 minute pre-interview with Poornima raised even more questions than answers. While I will not rehash his story, (you can read it here), I want to provide the responses he received regarding Poornima’s claim of aquiring two PhD’s in virology and immunology in just 3 years using one thesis (a phenomenal and unrealistic feat) from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:
“The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has checked in with the following statement this morning from their press office: “Nobody by the name of Poornima Wagh has obtained a degree from our institution.” We have also received a second confirmation from Roger Watson: “I have it from the dean of Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases at LSHTM, Alison Grant, that nobody of her name has obtained any degree from their institution.” Update Thursday, September 1: The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has confirmed: “Nobody with the last name Wagh, including as part of a hyphenated surname or as part of a surname containing the letters in that order, has obtained a degree from this institution.”
The very school that Poornima claimed to receive her dual virology/immunology PhD’s from stated that they have no record of anyone by that name or any variations thereof having ever attended nor receiving PhD’s from their institution. Searches for Poornima’s thesis paper, which would have been a requirement in order to attain the PhD’s and would be public record, came up fruitless. In other words, Eric (along with the help of Dr. Kevin Corbett and Roger Watson) did exactly what Poornima asked any of her doubters to do. He checked with the institutions and found no record of her attendence, PhD’s, nor her thesis. Needless to say, this is a major red flag that was in dire need of resolving in order to establish some semblance of trust in the professional background Poornima presented.
Update: I have had a few people question why Eric Coppolino was able to receive information about Poornima Wagh not attending LSHTM without her permission. I decided to follow-up with LSHTM to find out. It seems that due to Poornima claiming affiliation with the institution, they were able to release this info about her non-attendence under special circumstances.
The 1,500 “SARS-COV-2” Samples Study
Another aspect of Poornima’s story that caused alarm for many of us was her extraordinary claim of having led the testing of 1,500 “SARS-COV-2” samples from southern California and finding nothing in them at all, just cellular debris. According to Poornima’s recounting of events, she was contacted by her P.I. in April 2020 to do the testing of 1,500 “SARS-COV-2” positive samples as her university had received a $1.5 million grant from the NIH to find and isolate “SARS-COV-2” from these samples. Poornima insisted that she was reluctant to take on the project as she knew that she would find no “virus.” However, after continued prodding by her P.I., Poornima agreed to perform the procedures but only upon the condition that she were allowed to do the process her way “as a pathologist” adhering to Koch’s Postulates. Upon finding no “SARS-COV-2” in any of the 1,500 samples as well as being unable to make any ferrets sick with the materials, her P.I. requested that Poornima and her team of 20 lab members repeat the entire process all over again, for a grand total of a three times. The results remained the same that no “SARS-COV-2” existed in any of the samples and no animals became sick. Alarmed by these results, the P.I. reached out to 100 differemt labs around the country to see if they could recreate the findings as well. Only 6 labs responded, 5 in California and one on the East coast. All labs followed the exact same protocols as laid out by Poornima and found the exact same results as well.
This led to a contentious meeting with the CDC’s Robert Redfield who demanded that, regardless of the findings, they all needed to state that “SARS-COV-2” was found within the samples. According to Poornima, her lab refused to follow along and attempted to publish the results as they were. There were numerous unsuccessful attempts with over 21 different journals, the last occuring in Oct. 2021. During this process of attempting to get the study published, the FBI raided her lab in April 2021 and confiscated everything. Poornima claimed that 5 members, including herself, kept digital and paper copies of the study and have continued the search for a publisher ever since, currently seeking publication in India. Apparently, two members of her team committed suicide under suspicious circumstances and according to Poornima’s interview with Eric Coppolino, her P.I. mysteriously died a few days before they spoke.
Needless to say, this story is incredible, and if true, it would be the death knell not only for “SARS-COV-2” but also for the pseudoscience known as virology. In fact, when many of us heard these claims, we were excited by the possibility that the No “Virus” Challenge was unnecessary as the proper controls and procedures that we wanted to see were already carried out by various labs and completed. However, upon closer examination of Poornima’s story, there are serious red flags which cast even more doubt about her credibility.
Over the course of this pandemic, a nearly identical version of Poornima’s story has made the rounds over social media, even being “fact-checked” numerous times. This version of events tested 1,500 “SARS-COV-2” positive samples and found mainly Influenza A along with a smaller number of Influenza B within the samples rather than “SARS-COV-2.” This particular narrative was credited to various people, including a seemingly fictional Dr. Derek Knauss as well as a very real Dr. Robert Oswald who denied any involvement. Even Partick Gunnels, who recently debated Steve Kirsch over the non-existence of “viruses,” was credited as the virologist after he read the story on YouTube. In order to show the striking similarities between Poornima’s story (right down to the dual virology-immunology degrees) and the previous version which has circulated at various times, I am providing the words attributed to Dr. Derek Knauss from April 19, 2021:
“A clinical scientist and immunologist-virologist at a southern California laboratory says he and colleagues from 7 universities are suing the CDC for massive fraud. The reason: not one of 1500 samples of people tested “positive” could find Covid-19. ALL people were simply found to have Influenza A, and to a lesser extent Influenza B. This is consistent with the previous findings of other scientists, which we have reported on several times.
Dr. Derek Knauss: “When my lab team and I subjected the 1500 supposedly positive Covid-19 samples to Koch’s postulates and put them under an SEM (electron microscope), we found NO Covid in all 1500 samples. We found that all 1500 samples were primarily Influenza A, and some Influenza B, but no cases of Covid. We did not use the bulls*** PCR test.’
At 7 universities not once is COVID detected
‘When we sent the rest of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a couple of the labs at the University of California, they came up with the same result: NO COVID. They found Influenza A and B. Then we all asked the CDC for viable samples of Covid. The CDC said they can’t give them, because they don’t have those samples.’
‘So we came to the hard conclusion through all our research and lab work that Covid-19 was imaginary and fictitious. The flu was only called ‘Covid,’ and most of the 225,000 deaths were from co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, pulmonary emphysema, etc.. They got the flu which further weakened their immune systems, and they died.’
‘This virus is fictitious’
‘I still need to find one viable sample with Covid-19 to work with. We who conducted the lab test with these 1500 samples at the 7 universities are now suing the CDC for Covid-19 fraud. The CDC still has not sent us a viable, isolated and purified sample of Covid-19. If they can’t or won’t, then I say there is no Covid-19. It’s fictional.’
‘The four research papers describing the genome extracts of the Covid-19 virus never managed to isolate and purify the samples. All four papers describe only small pieces of RNA that are only 37 to 40 base pairs long. That is NOT a VIRUS. A viral genome normally has 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs.’
Update: Bill Houston, who wrote a very good article breaking this Poornima situation down, had previously uncovered this reply on a forum apparently from Poornima 2 years ago:
As can be seen, Poornima claims that she isolated Influenza A/B from the samples which aligns her story exactly with the Derek Knauss/Robert Oswald story that had stated the very same thing. That is, until Poornima changed it to no “virus” having been found within the samples whatsoever.
The striking similarities between the stories of Poornima and Derek Knauss and Co. were a huge red flag. This nearly identical tale attributed to various people over the last year-and-a-half has popped up numerous times yet there is no verifiable information that these studies and events ever took place. This leads to one of two possible scenarios:
- Poornima is finally giving us the real version of these events.
- Poornima copied this story and incorporated it into her own after having read it.
Taking into consideration that Poornima has seemingly not been honest about her PhD’s, it leads one to conclude that the most likely scenario is the latter.
Worldwide Vaccine Investigation
One of Poornima’s most recent unverified claims is that she is currently engaged in a worldwide investigation into what is really contained within multiple “Covid” vaccines. She stated that the investigations have so far uncovered that all of the vaccines contain essentially the same ingredients (just in varying quantities) which includes lipids nanoparticles, trillions of reduced graphene oxide particles, and an assortment of heavy metals. Not a single vaccine contains mRNA, even the Pfizer and Moderna injections. Poornima listed 18 scientists stationed in various parts of the world collaborating with her in this endeavor yet she has not provided any verification beyond that. I have it on good authority that, while Poornima claimed to have 2 scientists in New Zealand, no one in NZ is working with her which casts a shadow of doubt upon the whole operation. When we include the unverified claims regarding the questionable vaccine investigation with both the missing PhD’s and the apparent plagarism of the lab story, this confluence of highly suspicious information needed immediate clarification from Poornima. However, this sadly was not meant to be.
Regis did invite Poornima back on after Eric’s article so that she could defend herself from the evidence presented against her. While I was not expecting anything different than what ultimately transpired, there was a part of me that had hoped that maybe this was just one big misunderstanding and that Poornima would somehow come through with documentation proving that she did in fact attain 2 PhD’s from LSHTM. Maybe she would present her thesis paper and provide availability to anyone anxious to read it. Perhaps she would give a small taste of the methods section from the monumental study debunking “SARS-COV-2” and virology that she was looking to publish independently in India. A part of me was pulling for her to give us something. Anything, really.
Unfortunately, all that was given was an inaccurate portrayal of the events that transpired. Poornima stated that this was an attack against her based on our collective ego. She continued to falsely claim that Eric grilled and interrogated her. Poornima stated that she was harassed (which is untrue as can be seen by Christine Massey’s release of our e-mails with her here) and she even threatened legal action. When pressed by Regis if she would allow him, someone whom she considered a friend, access to her school records in order to clear this situation up once and for all, Poornima said that she would not let Regis nor anyone else see this evidence. Throughout the 42 minute interview, Poornima oddly and repeatedly referred to herself as a fraud while trying to defend herself against this perception and even apologized to Regis for disappointing him. It is hard to make the case that these were not the words of someone with everything to lose and nothing to gain by verifying the accuracy of her professional background and education. For someone who originally seemed open to being vetted, Poornima ended up not being agreeable to it at all.
This unwillingness to be vetted is a major concern when a person has made some extraordinary claims that are in need of being verified. Please note that had Poornima never claimed to be a dual PhD in virology and immunology, had never claimed to have led a ground-breaking study disproving all of virology, and had never claimed to be working with 18 labs across the world dissecting the vaccines, the need to verify her background would have been unnecessary and the focus would have been solely on the information she presented. However, Poornima made her credentials and her expertise central to her own credibility by making such bold statements and tying it into her own personal story and presentations. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence to back them up and so far, Poornima has delivered nothing to verify that these claims are in fact true. If we accept these claims as true without investigating them, then we are doing a disservice to ourselves and everyone else. I had reached out to Poornima after Eric’s article but before her last interview with Regis to explain this to her and to see if she would accept another chance to get together to talk and clear the air:
This is Mike from ViroLIEgy.com. I wanted to reach out as it seems things have become a little contentious between you and others within an email group I participate in. I understand from some communications that you felt grilled by Eric in his pre-interview and also threatened by inquiries into your past education, work experience, and credentials. It is unfortunate if our communications with you have come across in such a manner. No one wants to claim you as a fraud and we are in fact holding out hope that the work you have done is legitimate as it would be a great boost to our collective cause.
Please understand that our attempts to vet you are based upon obtaining verification before promoting your work. As you have set your credentials and experience as a central component to the credibility of much of what you present, we need to verify this before we would be able to jump on board. We want nothing more than to come together as a unified front. However, there are some definite questions and concerns we would love to address with you and resolve in order to move the conversation forward. Please do not see this as a threat or attempt to discredit/defame you as that is definitely not the intention. We really need to be able to verify as much as we can as we would be doing a disservice to ourselves and everyone else without doing our due diligence. I hope that we can all get together and discuss this in the interest of becoming a united front. Thanks for understanding and also for promoting my blog in your presentations. It is greatly appreciated. 🙂
Sadly, I never heard back from Poornima. However, as she stated in her latest interview with Regis, Poornima is right in that she owes us nothing. Even though she agreed to it, Poornima does not need to meet with us. She does not need to verify herself for us. She does not need to explain her motivations to us nor to anyone else. This was entirely voluntary and was never a requirement. However, doing so would have been a great way to foster a relationship of trust between us as well as with anyone else who listens to her. It would have laid a strong foundation that could have been built upon going forward.
Speaking for myself, I wanted to believe in Poornima. I wanted to promote her presentations. I wanted another ally in this fight. I wanted very much to proclaim that the necessary control experiments that could serve as the final nail in the coffin of virology were already completed and ready to be shared. I understand the strong desire to believe in someone. I understand the promise of what Poornima represented and the hope that she inspired. I understand also, that as one of the messengers who is shining a light on the cracks in the foundation of her personal story, I will be blamed by those supporters who are angry for dashing the promise she embodied. However, as I stated in my email to Poornima, I would be doing a disservice to myself and to everyone else if I did not do the due diligence of helping to vet her information properly. We owe it to ourselves to always ensure that the information we receive and share is accurate, and with Poornima, determining this accuracy was heavily tied to having her verify her credentials. Without the PhD’s, her whole story falls apart.
In the end, it all comes down to a matter of trust, which is something that is earned and not given. It is built by the integrity and the honesty of the other person. It is based on the consistency of telling the truth. If trust is earned and that relationship is ultimately broken, it is a difficult thing to repair and rebuild. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that those who are presenting valuable information to the public regarding the fraud of virology are shown to be trustworthy by demonstrating themselves to be consistently honest and of the utmost integrity.
In my own personal example, I try to be as open and honest about myself as possible. I am not claiming to be any more than I am. I have no problem if someone decided to call my college and ask if I actually obtained a degree in Exercise Science. I have absolutely nothing to hide and I feel better being upfront about who I am. While I have spoken about my educational background, it does not enhance nor detract from the information I share. It is not essential to my writing about the foundational flaws of virology as this information stands on its own and is in no way tied to my background. Anyone looking into my background will never be able to gather evidence that I lied about who I am as I value honesty above all else. If, for some reason, I did lie and it was uncovered, this information would rightfully be used against me, showing a dishonest person who has stained everything he wrote. Sadly, it would also be used to paint anyone saying similar things as myself in a negative light as well. For example, this is how Steve Kirsch is using this situation with Poornima to attack us “virus deniers” in a recent blog post:
“Eric Coppolino found exactly the same thing Jessica did: she’s a total fraud. This is why Poornima was so camera shy.
He wrote a brilliant Substack about it.
What we still don’t know is why she is fabricating all this stuff.
I have the same problem with any of the leaders of the “virus denier” movement. Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, Jon Rappoport, and others are all camera shy. There’s a reason for that: they would be exposed as frauds in minutes.”
Being exposed as dishonest would break a hard-earned chain of trust that has been established by myself, my colleagues, and those who have come before us. It is a chain that needs to remain unbreakable for those who will come after us. This is bigger than any one person as we are all links in this chain of transformational information.
In order to ensure that this chain remains unbreakable, we must establish that those who are attaching themselves to it are trustworthy as well. To do so, we must determine if that person is truthful. A great way of doing so beyond verifying records is to ask ourselves how we would respond if we were to find ourselves in a similar situation. If I was a dual PhD in virology and immunology, I’d be estatic to flaunt that information for anyone to see as, like it or not, it would make me more credible in the eyes of many. I would not shy away from providing this evidence if asked, especially if I was involved in a groundbreaking study and I needed to sell my own credibility in order to get more eyes on this research. If I was having trouble getting my study published and I knew this information was of vital importance as it could potentially end this fraudulent field once and for all, I would create my own website and self-publish. I would also share the study with those who have a large audience in order to disseminate this information far and wide, especially if I felt that my life was potentially in danger due to a previous FBI raid and several mysterious deaths to my team members and P.I.
What I would not do if I was in this position is state that anyone can look into and verify my background and then get angry when someone finally does so. I would not back away from answering detailed questions about my groundbreaking study, my extraordinary story, nor my varied work history. I would not continue to look to publish my study in medical journals after numerous unsuccessful attempts to do so. I would not attack those who are my potential allies who were trying to vet my story by doing what anyone with common sense would do by asking for verifiable proof. If I was accused of lying about my credentials, I would not go on to do an interview defending myself where I do not provide the evidence in question. I also would not refuse to verify for the host that my credentials actually exist. Most importantly, I would not repeat that “I am a fraud” over and over again and apologize to the host who introduced me to the world at large for disappointing him. I would never accept the label of a fraud and I would fight to reclaim my credibility.
We must all ultimately determine for ourselves who we view as individuals that we can trust. We must always seek to verify the information that we receive by looking at the evidence for ourselves and judging it based upon its merits and our own personal standards. If we are to look at the facts relating to this unfortunate situation, what we find is:
- The LSHTM stated that no records exist of anyone by the name of Poornima Wagh ever attending or receiving two PhD’s from them.
- Poornima’s reluctance to verify and share any evidence of her PhD’s, her thesis, or her studies.
- The lack of any corroborating evidence for any study being performed looking at 1500 “SARS-COV-2” samples and finding no “virus.”
- No evidence of any raid by the FBI.
- No evidence that Poornima is working with 18 other scientists around the world dissecting the vaccines.
These facts alone are enough, if my opinion, to break the chain of trust with Poornima. However, is it enough for anyone else? That is a personal question and one that we each need to evaluate for ourselves in order to answer. However, it is absolutely imperative to remember that for any individuals whom we hoist up into a position of influence, we must know for a fact that they are indeed who they say that they are and that they possess an honesty and integrity of character that will always shine through. We need to ensure that when someone comes along making amazing claims, before we put them into the spotlight, we slow down and verify that they are who they claim to be and that the information they claim to have actually exists.
At this fork in the road, there really are only two paths that can be taken, and the decision ultimately resides in Poornima. In light of the evidence supplied by the LSHTM, if the information was somehow inaccurate and Poornima does indeed have evidence of her two PhD’s and her schooling there, she really should come forward with this evidence in order to put this issue to bed. It would also be wise to at least present some evidence relating to the monumental study involving the 1,500 “SARS-COV-2” samples as well as anyone who can corroborate that she is actually working with various labs around the world looking into the vaccines. At least some verification of her claims is required in order to reestablish the chain of trust.
The other option, if it ultimately does turn out that Poornima was dishonest about not only her credentials but also the research that she was supposedly involved in, is to simply come clean and apologize. While the trust would be broken and the damage to her credibility would be severe, it is a massively important first step towards repairing what was broken. If Poornima desires a voice in this movement, it is absolutely necessary to work towards rebuilding that trust.
What is sad about this situation is that Poornima has shown that she has a very good knowledge base and she is obviously gifted at doing power point presentations. She was able to capture the attention of many as she has a way of presenting information in an easily digestible manner. If she did lie about her credentials as well as her work, it was absolutely unnecessary as she did not need that false facade in order to be a voice in this movement. All she needed was to be herself, whoever that ultimately is, and present accurate information to the public. Would she have captured the attention of so many so quickly without the 2 PhD’s and the groundbreaking studies? Probably not. However, while it may have taken a while longer to find an audience, her natural charm and style would have found a way to reach those seeking this knowledge. In the end, we would have witnessed the arrival of a powerful ally in this fight irregardless as to whether she was a virologist or not. Now, we may never know what could have been.