Lucira the "Pocket sized PCR Lab" for $29.99. Discover the truth about PCR testing and what it may mean for everyone testing positive. No longer is a sophisticated million dollar machine required for testing.

 Sometime ago I found out about a pocket sized PCR thermocycler that ran on two AA batteries called Lucira that was made by Pfizer. I thought it was so hilarious the juxtaposition of trying to convince people that the PCR was some highly sophisticated Laboratory technique that only the Priests in White Coats could conduct behind closed doors with their PhDs, whilst simultaneously rolling out a handheld one that runs on a couple of Duracells.

Jamie Andrews · September 27, 2024 Lucira the "Pocket sized PCR Lab" for $29.99

All of the content that is put out on this Substack is going to be for free. If you feel so inclined to donate or Sign up for a Paid Subscription that is very much appreciated. It will keep me writing, putting out content and continuing the largest Control Studies Project falsifying Virology.

THE VIROLOGY CONTROLS STUDIES PROJECT

So colour me shocked when I discovered that it wasn’t just the PCR that was being reduced to Pint-sized Plastic form, but it was indeed the supposed bastion of the genetics world, a Nanopore Sequencer. Some of these claimed highly sophisticated machines cost up to $1m and can be the size of an American Fridge Freezer, but yet they are now trying to claim that this tech can be condensed into the size of a handheld unit that is powered by a USB C cable.

A Nanopore Sequencer circa 2024:

The All new Nanopore Sequencer (Macbook not included):

Say HI! to the minION Nanopore sequencer. It’s the size of and looks like a stapler, but actually it is going to sequencer your (non existent) genetics with the longest read lengths known to man. Now this machine is funny not only because they are lifting the veil that their super dooper tech is actually so shit it can be condensed into looking like a piece of stationary, but more than that, in fact WAY more, is that they actively tell you what they are measuring, right in your face, right in the very name: minION

THEY ARE MEASURING CHARGE

Anyone that has followed the Virology Control Studies project for any length of time will be very aware of the conclusion that I have given as to What the PCR is really testing for? If not please follow the link to the article. The quick conclusion is that the PCR IS measuring charge, this is inferred (and I hate that it has to be inferred, which you will find out why later on in this article) from the fact that the PCR is confirmed with Gel Electrophoresis which IS measuring charge. It is a logical conclusion because any erroneous results in PCR MUST be confirmed with Gel Electrophoresis.

With minION they have removed all doubt, there is no indirect inferences needed, they actively tell you that they are measuring charge. An electrically resistant membrane with a bunch of tiny holes in it measures the change in voltage as a sample runs through it. The tiny differences in voltage is interpreted totally In Silico, i.e computer generated to give a readout. That is it. That is ALL there is to this supposedly incredible modern technology that they can do all of the mesmerizing things they claim with genetic engineering of plant and animal life (That they are actually talking bollocks about).

It begins and ends there, that is the amount of actual tangible results that should be gleaned from this, when you squirt a liquid obtained from some living organism through a membrane it has some variable charge that seems to form a pattern. End of story. Finito.

INFERENCE

I will take this opportunity to teach this one, very powerful premise, that is relatively easy to understand but empowers you to cut through the bullshit of the entirety of “Bio”Chemistry and indeed most of modern science. Once you fully understand this cheap magic trick, the thinly veiled facade of modern science crumbles like the walls of Rome and turns to dust.

I will bore you a little with my wrestling with Grok as an example of both what I mean, AND how much this magic trick is being protected by the establishment (who code these AI programmes).

So here we see that Grok desperately wants to try and cover up the fact that at the very heart of Genetic Sequencing is complete Vaporware, arrows pointing toward each other and then in opposite directions, follow any one of the paths that claim there is an actual physical benchmark to validated the results against and it ends up being an Inference.

This is the dictionary definition of circular reasoning, a shell game, where they lift up the cup to reveal nothing at the end of what it means to infer something from an Ionic Current in Nanopore, point at Fluorescence being a definite concrete marker, only to, when pressured, admit that Fluorescence, obviously, is also just inferred.

The fact that these adjacent “Technologies” seem to all co-exist but have identical methods of faking causality suggests that this really is purposeful bafflement, a huge Tsunami sized smoke screen wall, to confuse any onlookers and those that are only willing to do cursory searches for the foundational validation of these witchcraft-esq machines. Why would you continually need to invent new markers that supposedly indicate something if the first one you came up with worked? Well, we all should know why, because give it enough time and so many Janky results come out that even the heavily indoctrinated start to question the validity of the utensils in the lab.

Here we see two lab techs comfortable opening up about their frustrations with why they can’t get the results they need/want/get paid for out of their PCR machines, describing it as “witchcraft” and “moody”. Well this is the thing, there will be mutterings along these lines for a few years, then enough people will turn over the cards that *THIS* version of PCR is shit and unreliable, so incomes RT-QPCR to take over with its all new fluorescent light display. That gets user tested, people eventually find out is is just as shit and the cycle repeats.

Why is an Inference so bad?

Here’s the thing, they want this to seem like I am being over sensitive, throwing the baby out with the bathwater of human progress. But Jamie, you are just trying to be obtuse because it makes for good reading and click bait. No No, The reason why they want you to give them leeway, is because unless the curtain is fully drawn back, the cardboard cutout and the midget pulling the levers on the smoke machine is there, but you can only see their legs. You could still *Infer* that those little legs were not that of Mark the Dwarf of Oz but of a normally sized man standing further back than you originally thought and their frantic shuffling was not them pulling the levers of a giant distraction smoke screen, but indeed because they desperately needed the toilet.

When you have one Inference it is OK to build upon it or take it somewhat for granted. The cockerel is crowing in the morning is a safe inference that the Sun is rising. You can hear the cockerel crowing without having to see the sun rising , to be fairly certain and make an educated assumption that the sun is rising. This is predicated on concrete and tangible and repeated occurrences where cockerels and the sun exist, cockerels can be observed to crow at the sun rising and they do it repeatedly every morning.

Now Cockerels are known to also crow at just intermittent changes in artificial light, like the headlights of cars, LED Floodlights, so on and so forth. So even with all other certainties involved in this cause and effect happening, an inference is still not a great marker.

When in the case of say RT-QPCR you cross reference it with this same analogy you get something like this:

The Crowing = The Fluorescent Light the only tangible thing, fluorescent lights do occur, however this is not a natural thing seen to occur in the experiment, it is a fluorescent dye extracted and excited on purpose.

The Cockerel= Target genetics of a virus. This has never been shown to exist and only inferred.

The Sun= The PCR machine and all of the reagents. These are tangible real things, metal and LED lights and electrical power-source and powders and plastic tubes. However every single part of this is Inferred to cause the Cockerel to Crow. The big giveaway here is that there is a few components namely the electricity and the LEDS which on their own, without any Cockerel, can Crow, because these on their own can excite a fluorescent dye, the reason why they don’t always do it however, is also inferred.

We could go through every single moving part of this process and list the inferences, for sake of brevity and boredom I will list just a few and let you get the idea:

Heating a sample cause DNA to split into strands, Cooling makes them reform, Enzymes can choose where and when to join nucleotides together or cut them apart, Fluorescent dyes can attach to certain nucleotides, quenchers likewise, DNA can have copies of itself and amplify billions of times etc etc etc.

ALL of these, if I really sat there and wasted my time, thousands of assumptions/inference are based on ONE thing, a fluorescent light fluorescing, according to mainstream science it is not possible to see any of these things happening at any stage of the process at any time, in real-time, stationary or moving.

NANODWARF SEQUENCING

So I want to fully ram home the dangers of Inferences to logic and reality by taking the entire Nanopore Sequencing story but inserting different inferences into the gaps where the mainstream inferences are:

NanoDwarfs are found in every cell in our body, they are present in their billions, they are so numerate that if you took every NanoDwarf in your body and put them end on end they’d reach to Pluto and back 6 times. But you can’t see them, at all, they are invisible to any sort of microscope, because they are camera shy.

These NanoDwarfs hold hands and form tiny little chains, these patterns in these chains determine our entire existence, from our eye colour, to our height to potentially how long we will live for, they do this because the songs they sing make your red blood cells dance (although it is an asymptomatic dance). The Dwarfs like to hold hands because they are homosexual, however Adam and Trevor are in a couple as are Colin and Geoff. They will hold hands with each other but only face each other if they are in a couple.

NanoDwarfs sequencing takes a very expensive, highly sophisticated, sensitive and accurate machine that can give a readout to the exact Dwarf of the four Dwarfs (Adam, Trevor, Geoff and Colin) that make up our Dwarfnetics and why we are what we are. We can read our NanoDwarf sequence because their beards are electrically charged with static electricity from wearing polyester Lederhosen. We put Bratwurst on one side of a NanoDwarf membrane with holes in it the exact size of their bellies. When the NanoDwarfs are hungry they go through the NanoHoles to eat the Bratwurst and the Static Electricity from their beards rubs against our sensor probes.

Adam has a Red beard, Colin has a Yellow beard, Tevor has a Green beard and Geoff has a Blue beard. The amounts of static electricity differ ever so slightly in each of their beards so when they pass through our sensors you get a read out that a computer can interpret the NanoDwarf sequence, seen below:

Trevor,Geoff,Adam,Adam,Adam,Colin,Geoff,Colin,Trevor,Adam,Adam,Colin,Adam,Adam,Adam,Trevor,Geoff,Adam,Trevor,Colin,Geoff.

That’s the technical readout of this sequence (I only wrote it because it’ll be hilarious to hear the Substack AI voice read it out).

This is a computer image of the moment the electricity comes from Geoff’s Beard.

We can build the computer models of Geoff’s Beard energy above because we have performed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of isolated and purified NanoDwarfs - that we assumed were in a test tube. As we can see from the image below (Please ignore the caption saying it is RNA Polymerase, that is just some bullshit) we can clearly see this is the zoomed in curly hairs of Geoff’s Blue Beard.

Conclusion

We have seen that they now have pocket sized Nanopore Sequencers. Expect that once we debunk the PCR as any sort of legitimate tool for finding anything that they will just start making these handheld sequencers more and more plasticky, cheaper and cheaper until you can do home sequencing tests. Have a dribbly nose and a scratchy throat? Self sequence and find out if you do actually have a dribbly nose and a scratchy throat.

I am glad however, that the large curtains have been drawn all the way back and the naked truth has been thrust into the spotlight, yes THEY ARE MEASURING CHARGE. We have also seen, when we know what questions to ask and areas to probe that we can back AI into a corner to admit that it is all just Inference.

Hopefully I have adequately displayed that Inference is a dangerous and totally anti-reality tool utilized to the full extent by modern science. Once something is predicated solely on tests and third party diagnostics, you are only limited by your imagination, I could write an entire Encyclopedia on Nanodwarfs based on the sole metric of charge registered in a machine, as that is all they have done with “Bio”Chemistry. It is just as likely that the Minion Nanopore Sequencer is actually measuring the Static electricity put out by the the beards of Nanodwarfs. Hehere is as much evidence of NanoDwarfs as there are of Nucleotides, prove me wrong.

The Virology Controls Studies Project

 by Jamie Andrews

The Virus That Wasn’t There: Why “Isolation” Is Built on Flawed Science. Cell culture experiments reveal that Cytopathic Effect (CPE) appears without viruses present. Is viral isolation real science—or just smoke and mirrors?

For more than a century, the world has been told that viruses are invisible assassins—tiny infectious agents that leap from body to body, wreaking havoc wherever they land. Textbooks speak with authority. Media headlines terrify the public. Governments mobilize armies of doctors, syringes, and pharmaceutical companies under the assumption that contagion is a proven, indisputable fact.

But what happens when you strip away the assumptions and demand that science actually show the goods? What if the grand claims of virology collapse under the most basic demand of science: proof through direct observation, reproducible isolation, and properly controlled experiments?

That is precisely what recent cell culture control experiments are beginning to expose.

The Illusion of Isolation

Virology claims to “isolate” viruses through a process that looks rigorous on paper. A sample from a sick person is added to a culture of human or animal cells. The culture medium is reduced in nutrients (less serum, more antibiotics), and over several days, the cells begin to sicken and die. Under a microscope, they round up, balloon, detach, or fuse into syncytia—morphological changes labeled “Cytopathic Effect” (CPE).

This, we are told, is proof of a virus.

But here’s the problem: you don’t need a virus to produce those effects. The cell culture itself, when deprived of nutrients and poisoned with antibiotics, exhibits the exact same breakdown. Recent experiments, carefully documented, demonstrate this beyond doubt.

When HEK293 cells were maintained in healthy conditions (10% FBS), they remained viable and confluent. But when grown under so-called “maintenance medium” (1–2% FBS plus antibiotics), the cells reliably exhibited CPE—without any viral material introduced. In other words, the very environment created by the virologist guarantees cell death.

If an experiment produces the same result whether the supposed virus is present or not, the result cannot be used as evidence of a virus. That is not science; that is sleight of hand.

The Starvation Trick

Think about the absurdity of the situation. If viruses exist as independent particles, they should be isolatable in pure form—filtered, purified, and visualized under an electron microscope—without killing an entire culture dish of cells in the process.

Instead, virology has built its empire on the starvation trick: reduce the serum, overload the antibiotics, watch the cells collapse, and then declare that collapse to be proof of a viral predator.

It is the equivalent of locking a dog in a closet without food or water, then announcing that its eventual death proves the existence of an invisible wolf.

The Contagion That Never Was

What about transmission, you ask? Surely viruses prove themselves in real-world contagion.

History says otherwise. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, Navy doctors attempted to demonstrate human-to-human transmission. Secretions from sick patients were sprayed into the throats, noses, and eyes of healthy volunteers. The result? Failure. Not a single volunteer developed influenza.

Decades later, similar experiments with measles, mumps, and the common cold yielded the same awkward result: direct attempts to induce illness through bodily fluids often failed. The reality of contagion—at least as popularly imagined—was far less straightforward than germ theory would have us believe.

If contagion were as automatic and unstoppable as the viral narrative insists, these experiments should have produced clear, reproducible illness. They did not.

The Transfection Mirage

Virology often falls back on “transfection” as its trump card. By introducing purified nucleic acids into a cell line, scientists claim to show viral replication. But in practice, transfection is a highly artificial laboratory procedure requiring toxic reagents, manipulated cell lines, and conditions far removed from the natural body.

When medical professionals have attempted transfection under ordinary conditions, the results have been underwhelming—often complete failure. Without lab tricks and chemical coercion, the magic dissolves.

If an infectious agent cannot reliably infect under normal, unmanipulated circumstances, then what exactly are we proving?

Control Is King

This is where the recent control experiments are so devastating. For years, virology has been guilty of using “mock controls” rather than genuine negative controls. In a mock control, the conditions are not truly identical—cells are grown in rich medium, not in the same stressed conditions as the test cultures. This guarantees that the “infected” dish will appear sicker, even though the sickness is simply starvation and toxicity.

The new studies fix this error. They use true negative controls: identical cell lines, identical starvation medium, identical antibiotics—just no supposed viral inoculum. The result? CPE arises in the controls, to the same degree and with the same morphological features, as in the test plates.

This obliterates the claim that CPE is evidence of viral infection.

The Positive Control Problem

Virology textbooks love to show electron micrographs of bacteriophages or adenoviruses—shapes that look like tiny alien spacecraft. But when you trace the methods behind these images, they are not photographs of isolated, purified viruses. They are pictures of cell debris, centrifuged soup, and stained fragments.

Even so-called “positive controls” fail to rescue the narrative. In recent work, samples from healthy individuals—supposedly teeming with trillions of viruses—produced no greater CPE than uninfected controls. Published images of “infected” HEK cells with adenoviruses or coronaviruses show no difference in cell death compared to uninoculated, starved cultures.

If the presence of a virus cannot be distinguished from its absence, the entire method collapses.

Science or Pseudoscience?

At its heart, science requires that observable effects be specific to the independent variable being tested. If a virus is the independent variable, then only the virus should produce CPE. If the same effect occurs without it, the experiment is invalid.

Yet virology persists in declaring victory from invalid methods. It is pseudoscience cloaked in white coats and expensive equipment.

The Elephant in the Lab

This raises a sobering question: if viruses are not what we think they are, what are we really observing? Are we confusing the effects of toxicity, starvation, and cellular breakdown with the evidence of an invisible invader?

And if so, what does that mean for the vast edifice of modern medicine—vaccines, antivirals, public health policies—built on this questionable foundation?

Conclusion: The Proof That Wasn’t

A virus, if it existed as described, should be able to stand on its own. It should be isolatable without trickery, visible without mass cellular death, demonstrably contagious under real-world conditions, and reproducibly infectious without artificial manipulation.

Instead, what we have are experiments where starved, poisoned cells die on cue, and scientists declare the death a victory for virology. We have transmission studies that fail to transmit. We have transfection procedures that only work in contrived lab conditions.

The conclusion is unavoidable: the “proof” of viruses is not proof at all. It is assumption propped up by flawed methods and sustained by repetition.

Science deserves better. Humanity deserves better. And the truth—whatever it turns out to be—deserves to be pursued without fear, without dogma, and without smoke and mirrors.

Jamie Andrews Substack