Dr. Yeadon Comments on "GAIN OF FICTION. The Real Psy-op" by Jamie Andrews
"There’s no scientific method in virology. Only fraud, sleight of hand, deception and trickery. In short, lies... It’s almost as if there are psychopaths running virology."
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
⚡ What aren’t they telling you? Please Join Exposing the Darkness News on Telegram.
By Dr. Michael Yeadon August 4, 2025
Jamie Andrew’s language is occasionally fruity. I invite you to look past that. If you cannot, then don’t read him.
Unusually, for me, I’ve actually spoken with Jamie before he’d completed his initial, major piece of work. So I knew him as a smart & determined person, even before he’d broken cover, as it were.
Like me, he’d read that the commonplace endpoint in “virology”, which isn’t the scientific discipline I used to think it was, systematically lacks controls.
In brief, it is claimed that, when a clinical sample thought to contain a “virus” was added to cells in cultures, those cells die, because of nasty things the “virus” does to those poor cells. And this is what they do to you, too!
This dying off is called “cytopathic effect” (CPE), from “cyto”, pertaining to a cell & “pathic”, related to a disease process.
Now, even if you’re not a biologist, my guess is that, in order to even begin to claim that there was something in the patient’s sample, perhaps a “virus”, that caused the cells to die, you also need, for comparative purposes, an identical culture of the same cells, to which you’d add a sample taken from a healthy person or, at very least, an equivalent addition of some drops of the same liquid in which the patient’s sample was collected.
You absolutely need this “control”, or comparative, arm of the study. Otherwise you don’t know what would have happened if you’d done nothing at all. Maybe the cells would have begun to die anyway, if they’d been in culture too long for continuing viability.
That is in fact what Jamie’s control studies revealed. When he filled in the missing controls, the cells died just the same as they had, in the hands of others, who claimed that the cell deaths (or CPE %) were caused by an alleged “virus” in the clinical sample.
This happened time and time again. The entire endpoint was trashed. All papers utilising this endpoint, this method for claiming existence of a “virus”, are null and void.
Without this, they’ve no evidence whatsoever for their purported “virus”.
When we look to other means to claim existence for any of these purported submicroscopic, infectious particles, guess what we find? More fraud. Every “pillar of evidence” employed in virology is fraudulent.
Jamie’s interest is in drilling into claims, many of them quite elaborately and scary, and testing when the scientific method, involving such things as controls, were used.
TLDR: they weren’t. There’s no scientific method in virology. Only fraud, sleight of hand, deception and trickery. In short, lies.
This is why I assert there’s no scientific evidence for the existence of any virus.
Jamie isn’t stopping here. There is a world of lies to unearth and show you in other areas, interestingly, always the ones used to scare, coerce and poison you & your children.
It’s almost as if there are psychopaths running virology.
Best wishes,
Mike
Related articles:
There’s no scientific method in virology. So...for the last 70 years, since WWII we have a built a multi-billion $$$$ industry on a foundation of lies? Scientific method was ignored? How can that be?
Yes, indeed. The psychopaths are running virology. And everything else too. Is there a institution left in the world which has not lost its moral compass?