Control Experiments and the Intention to Deceive

by Mia Breeze | Mar 1. 2024

Introduction

I want to re-emphasis a particular point in the no-virus debate, a point we have already attempted to draw attention to, but the wider implication of which people have seemingly failed to grasp.

The point concerns the control experiments undertaken by virologists. Harold Hillman articulated part of this point nicely when he stated in one of his books, “an experiment is only as valid as the control experiments carried out in parallel with it. Most research workers assume that their supervisors, or the pioneers of the procedures which they are using, have done all the crucial controls, and they suffer serious intellectual crises, when they have to face the facts, that this is not always true.”

In our articles titled:

The Most Detailed Control Ever Published.
Virology – The Damning Evidence.
An Update on Virus Isolation.

We went to great effort to identify and list all those instances we could find in the published literature where virologists, by means of their very own control experiments, showed that virology was a pseudoscience.

In all the instances listed in these articles, the virologists themselves showed that it was the very procedures that they had adopted in their experiments which caused the results they were recording and crediting to a virus. In each and every case, the virologists were incapable of distinguishing the results of their controls from those of their main experiment.

It is therefore not good enough to say that virologist failed to undertake proper control experiments as this is not the truth. Virologist did carry out control experiments. Yes, there were not many done but those that had been carried out had very telling results.

What virologist did not do is admit when these controls showed their experiments to be worthless and, later on, those that followed failed to verify that these controls had been properly done.

The Failed Control

The most glaring of the failed controls, and perhaps the most important one to understand, is the one carried out by John F Enders.

Enders, the pioneer of the gold standard for “virus isolation”, wrote in the founding study setting out that procedure, clear as day, that it was impossible to distinguish the cytopathic changes induced in an uninfected culture to those that were induced in an infected culture.

For a brief overview on what virologists consider as virus isolation refer to our previous article titled: Virus Isolation – Confusion is the Best Tool to Keep People from Truth.

Put differently, Ender’s stated his experiments (test) would indicate that a “virus” was present in a sample, even when he knew for certain that the sample used did not contain a virus of any kind. Essentially, his experiments gave false positives. A snippet from the paper can be seen above.

It is not too hard to work out why Enders would want to brush over this detail and ensure it did not receive much attention. It is because this detail clearly indicated that Enders had been wasting time and money and that any more experiments carried out to explore this detail was likely to prove this even more so (as Stefan Lanka’s control experiments proved many years later, refer to this link). So, Enders downplayed it, he had the intention to deceive.

Why no one else in the profession, prior to Lanka, made a big deal about this detail is also interesting. Because as already mentioned, this “confession” is written in black and white in the founding study. Yes, an inadequate amount of attention is placed on this detail, but the detail is there, for everyone to see.

It is not as if nothing of importance came from Enders’ experiments. Enders’ experiments were not forgotten about, in fact you could probably say that his published paper went “viral” among virologists.

Virology was born again following the publication of Enders’ experiments. Every novel virus in the world is supposed to have been proved to exist by means of Enders’ experiments. Enders’ experiments underpin the reasoning for most vaccinations. They justify the use of vaccinations on our babies and children.

Yet, during the time all these “advancements” in virology were being made, no virologist ever took the time to verify Enders’ experiments or even read his paper properly. Really?

Conclusion

It doesn’t matter whether this failed control was ignored on purpose or merely due to oversight by virologists. This is because whether a virologists can be said to have acted intentionally, as in the former case, or only negligently, as in the latter, they remain at fault in both cases.

Virologists have a duty to ensure their work is accurate and does not cause harm. In the exact same way, a builder has a duty to ensure his work is accurate and safe.

If a building falls and harms someone, the builder thereof will be held liable for the harm caused by his negligent work. It doesn’t matter that it only happened because he forgot to check the plans, it was part of his job to ensure the building wouldn’t fall down.

The motive for the crime only impacts the severity of the punishment, it doesn’t change the fact that the crime took place.

It is crucial that these obvious failures by virologist are viewed in this manner. It is crucial for preventing future pandemics from happening again.

Future generations need to be aware of this intention to deceive, it may stem from a negligent misrepresentation, an intentional misrepresentation or even a self-deception. Doesn’t matter, the risk of deception has shown itself to be very high and the public needs to sit up and take note.

All the harm and suffering of the last four years was allowed to happen and there was no bad luck about it.