Dear Toby, I’m a sober minded former Biopharma research scientist. I have discovered over the last six years, shockingly, that almost everything that is told to us by officialdom, which cannot be checked by us (because it’s too far away, too small or too complex) is a lie.

Among those lies is the pretence that submicroscopic, infectious particles called “viruses” are among the most important causes of illnesses.

However, the principal way of demonstrating the pathological properties of viruses rests entirely on a single technique. That is, addition of suspect samples to cells in culture, whereupon the cells begin to die, the so-called “cytopathic effect” or CPE.

This next part is so unbelievable that I rejected it for over two years after I was told about it. CPE occurs not because a clinical sample, thought to contain a virus was added, but because the researchers, following a 70 year old recipe, radically reduce the growth factors necessary to keep the cells alive and add high concentrations of antibiotics (ostensibly to retain bacterial sterility).

You may be thinking “This cannot be right because, if it was, the control leg of such a study would report CPE even with no putative pathogen”.

Here’s the shock. None of the papers reporting, for example, “The isolation of SARS-CoV-2” EVER include these controls. What this means is that, uniquely in “virology”, the scientific editors & peer reviewers have become accustomed to NOT expecting to see control legs and results. Obviously this is fraud.

But, does it matter? Over the last couple of years, Jamie Andrews, here on Substack, has gone back to the root of this central method in virology and, using Contract Research Organizations, performed the control studies above. In every case, when he looked at the cells after growth factor dilution and addition of antibiotics, he sees the cells begin to die off, that is, CPE occurs. He’s repeatedly confirmed that it’s the protocol & not the purported “virus” which causes cells to die.

What this shows is that the most important technique for “confirming the cytotoxic effect of viruses” is deliberate fraud and has been since the first time it was reported on in the 1950s. On that occasion a Nobel Prize was awarded for this sloppy science.

This is #1 in the three central lies of virology. Check Jamie’s articles for yourself.

The second lie is to claim that the illnesses misattributed to a virus are contagious. We’ve all been told that you can “catch” these illnesses yourself if transmission (aka contagion) happens. This is simply not true. In my own field of acute respiratory illnesses, typically colds and influenza (aka ‘flu), we’ve been told for decades that they’re “catching”, because these “viruses” hop from the sick person to a well person. You will be unable to find a single published paper demonstrating this simple principle, because it’s not true. I maintain a listing, on my Telegram channel, of every published study on attempted transmission of colds and flu. These papers start in 1918 & continue until 2024. In not a single paper do healthy volunteers develop symptoms, after spending time with a symptomatic person, any more often than when the volunteers spent the same amount of time with a well person. Acute respiratory illnesses are simply not contagious.

This is #2 lie of the trio.

Once it’s realised that ordinary illnesses have been deliberately misattributed to non-existent “viruses” and that such illnesses are not contagious, the entire field of vaccines is destroyed.

I summarise this, in short form, like this:

“The Virus Lie + The Contagion Lie = The Vaccine Lie”.

This is the most important piece of evil genius sitting at the centre of the totalitarian control grid that is being pushed for by scores of governments today in the form of a biometric, digital ID, updated in real time. We first saw hints of this by an obviously excited Tony Blair, who was going on about Vaccine Passports in 2020, long before there was any “vaccine”.

Based on the Virus Lie + The Contagion Lie, the authorities persuaded 5.5 billion people to roll up their sleeves and get injected.

I knew that these injections couldn’t possibly be as described. It’s simply not possible to invent, evaluate, run toxicity tests, execute the clinical trials claimed, manufacture, gain authorisation and be ready for launch in under one year. It’s like pretending to grow a baby in one month using nine women. It’s a lie and it wasn’t done. Either they did nothing like what we’ve been told or they started before the fraudulent pandemic happened. Neither is good.

Quite separate from all this, as a pharma veteran who trained, among other things, in Mechanistic Toxicology, I warned in writing to the European Medicines Agency, before any of these injections received their fake authorisation, that by the nature of the very design of these products, multiple, independent causes of harm were built into these products. The toxicities I warned about began happening on the first day of mass roll out and continue to today. There were additional harms which I had not spotted (particularly cancers).

Many people (as I did too) initially reject all this out of hand. We feel “sure” that we do indeed “catch colds” from other people. It’s certainly true that, from time to time, the sequencing of illnesses does happen in ways that are consistent with contagion. However, that’s all it is, consistent with contagion. It’s not proof of it. When we actively look for proof, it is never found. This means that other factors account for these patterns of illness.

The breakthrough for me was realising that we form patterns from events. Colds are sufficiently commonplace around us that, almost every time we develop a cold, we can recall somebody who, a short while back, was coughing a spluttering near us and conclude that this near encounter was the cause. What we never do is note the number of occasions where we have such encounters yet do not go on to develop symptoms of our own.

Expectations are crucial, too. Nobody with a migraine asks “From whom did I catch this headache?”. Nor does anyone experiencing angina say “I must have caught this chest pain from somebody”. Of course, you may say, these are not infectious diseases. I agree. However, neither are colds and flu.

Colds and flu are, in my professional opinion, like these other maladies, a consequence of loss of usual, dynamic internal equilibrium. Especially in winter, we’re moving between environments with high or low temperatures and high or low humidity. These and numerous other factors contribute to stressing our ability to tightly regulate our “airway surface liquid” which lines our entire respiratory tree. Loss of control of airway surface liquid prompts symptoms which we call a cold, and more severe disruptions we call flu. It takes days to weeks to regrow our airway lining cells as symptoms gradually subside.

We develop colds and flu. We simply do not catch them.

Why would anyone do this, setting up this complex deception?

First, the fear of illness and death is potent and it gives the authorities a mechanism to scare their citizens and as well as offering a pseudo justification for imposing restrictions upon us, notionally for public health reasons.

More usefully, it provides a pseudo justification for injecting trusting people in their billions. Our bodies normally defend us well against environmental threats. If we eat something that’s rancid, we will probably vomit it out. If we inhale something irritant, we may sneeze and we’ll certainly cough. If something caustic lands on our skin, it may burn & cause pain, prompting us to wash it off. But something injected into our bodies bypasses all of our natural defences.

One last thing. Of all the products of the pharmaceutical industry, only one, vaccines, may not be questioned, let alone challenged. Any doctor so doing will rapidly find their medical license in the balance. But it’s not limited to the medical profession. Any professional, dentist, architect, estate agent, solicitor etc etc who persistently criticises vaccines soon comes to the attention of their regulatory body or professional register. It’s made clear to you that continued criticism of vaccines “may be deemed to be bringing the profession into disrepute. This could have consequences on your continuing ability to practise your profession”. The pattern of extraordinary defence of vaccines extends to all professionals. It’s a very effective way of shutting people up.

I cannot find any other product of pharma where similar criticisms are not tolerated. On the contrary, even doctors may criticise certain drug classes such as anti-cholesterol drugs or even specific drugs in a class such as antidepressants.

I believe the best-fitting interpretation of all these events is that those I call The Perpetrators always envisioned using the fear of infectious & contagious diseases to frighten & control people at scale and subsequently to inject billions of people & most captive animals with covertly manufactured chemicals, obviously for nefarious purposes.

I’d be happy to chat if any of this extraordinary story piques your interest.

Best wishes

Mike