Out of Control

Why I have disassociated from Jamie Andrews and "The Virology Controls Studies Project."

I want to be upfront: this is not an article I want to write. However, I feel compelled to address recent false and slanderous accusations made about me by Jamie Andrews, the face and spokesman for “The Virology Control Studies Project.” This is not meant to critique the project itself or detract from its merits in any way. Rather, my goal is to clear the air and explain why, despite recognizing the value of the project, I can no longer associate with it due to the behavior and actions of its leader. Below, I provide a summary of the events that led to this falling out, demonstrating that Jamie Andrews’ defamatory accusations against me are unfounded.

A Murder of Crowe

It was in the fall of 2023 when issues with Jamie Andrews, the face and spokesman for “The Virology Control Studies,” first began to surface. At the time, I had found myself drawn into a Twitter debate surrounding the legacy of the late Canadian researcher David Crowe. Some participants were accusing him of being controlled opposition, allegedly working to undermine the Perth Group and fracture the AIDS dissident movement during his time as president of the Rethinking AIDS group. Much of this controversy stemmed from David's involvement in the Andre Parenzee case in the mid-2000s.

The debate primarily involved lawyer Anthony Brink, a Twitter user known as DPL, and another user named Pablo Cervantes. They were convinced that David, along with members of the Rethinking AIDS group such as Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and Etienne de Harven, were gatekeepers deliberately diverting attention away from the work of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the Perth Group. They formed this opinion primarily due to Brink's own record of events as well as Eleni's statement to Brink that “Crowe has destroyed the dissident movement.”

David Crowe was a significant influence on me when I first began uncovering the fraud of virology. Early in my journey, I discovered his Infectious Myth podcast and joined the related Facebook group. His work was compelling, accessible, and instrumental in shaping my understanding. In many ways, he played a pivotal role in inspiring the work I do today. Because of this, I felt a strong need to defend him against accusations that he was a gatekeeper diverting people from the truth—claims that were entirely at odds with my experience and that of many others in our group. If David was supposedly keeping people from realizing that “viruses” do not exist, he was doing a terrible job of it.

As the debate unfolded, Jamie joined the conversation. I knew Jamie from past exchanges with defenders of virology and was familiar with his tendency to adopt a harsh tone when addressing opposition. However, I had never seen him direct that same intensity toward those on the same side of the debate. Initially, our exchanges were cordial, but things would unravel whenever a disagreement or misunderstanding arose.

During our conversation, I got the impression that Jamie didn't know much about David Crowe or his work. He admitted to having read only one of David's papers—the one he co-wrote with Torsten Engelbrecht in 2005, which challenged the existence of the bird flu “virus.”

Despite this, Jamie still believed that David promoted the existence of “viruses.” This was easy to refute, along with the accusations that David's writings were vague. Nonetheless, Jamie continued to show complete distrust and disdain for him.

Jamie argued with incorrect facts, using them to create an inaccurate portrait of David. He believed that David had known about the “virus” lie since the '80s and had subverted the work of the Perth Group. I showed Jamie that David was not aware of either the “virus” lie or the Perth Group until the late '90s. Despite this, he remained particularly incensed by what he perceived as attacks by David against Eleni and the Perth Group, even though I presented evidence that David had attempted to resolve the animosity between them. It quickly became apparent to me that once Jamie deemed someone untrustworthy, no amount of evidence could change his opinion, even if it contradicted his original assertions.

By the end of our exchange, Jamie accused me of sullying Eleni's work—despite my having written a tribute to her after her passing.

He also labeled me a liar and claimed my actions were deceitful for defending David. As I do with anyone who cannot remain civil in conversation, I asked Jamie to stop accusing me of being a liar. I made it clear that if he continued, I would block him, as I would anyone else.

Our conversation ended unresolved, as Jamie never responded. I chose not to block him at the time, hoping that he might take some time to research David Crowe and clear up his misunderstandings. I was hoping that cooler heads would prevail in the future, but unfortunately, that was not the case.

Vitamin D-rama

Fast forward two months, and I once again found myself in conflict with Jamie. This time, I was defending Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey after Jamie, and a group he associates with on Telegram, referred to as the “Critical No Virus Group,” began attacking them—along with Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Dr. Amandha Vollmer—over disagreements that they had with the individuals that they saw as leading the “no virus” message. The primary criticism was that these individuals—who had given up their careers to speak out and educate the public—were merely grifters and establishment shills pushing harmful supplements for profit.

The conflict with the Baileys ignited when the group came across an old video Sam made about vitamin D in May 2020. While I won’t go into every detail here (as I’ve already covered it in my article The Hunt), this exchange with Jamie only heightened tensions between us. I understood Jamie's skepticism about vitamin D, it's potential toxicity, and his argument over whether its benefits had been conclusively proven. I even share these concerns. However, during our exchanges, he repeatedly labelled D3 as “rat poison”—as it is used as the active ingredient in rat poison—which felt like an emotional appeal rather than a substantive critique. It seemed aimed at igniting anger over an old Bailey video. The “rat poison” label could just as easily apply to many natural substances, as numerous foods are capable of killing a rat.

In an exchange with DPL, a member of the group, I asked whether he or anyone else who had made accusations against the Baileys had actually reached out to them to address their concerns. Jamie entered the conversation, claiming that the assertion that the Baileys recommend “people eat rat poison” was not an accusation but an undebatable fact. However, he was fully aware that this claim was false, as I had already shared with the group an email from Dr. Mark Bailey clarifying their stance on vitamin D, confirming that the Baileys no longer use or promote supplements. Jamie accused me of lying about what had been said about the Baileys, asserting that I had never mentioned this in my emails to them. I clarified that I was not discussing my emails to Mark but rather the comments I had seen from members of the group accusing the Baileys of shilling and grifting. Jamie accused me of lying once again, and I asked him to please refrain from calling me a liar, something that he had become increasingly fond of doing.

In an exchange with Pablo, another member of the group, who asked me about the D3 regimen Sam recommended in her video—a regimen she no longer endorses—Jamie joined the conversation and immediately resorted to a strawman argument, misrepresenting my position to attack it. I clarified that I hadn’t made the claim he was disputing and pointed out that his assertion that a 1.25 mg dose of D3 is toxic would require evidence from a properly controlled study. They couldn’t reasonably argue that Sam’s old regimen was toxic simply because D3 is used in high doses in rat poison, any more than one could claim that foods toxic to rats are inherently dangerous to humans.

My intention was not to endorse the use of D3 or to claim that it provides any benefits. I was simply pointing out that any claims—such as asserting that the regimen Sam once recommended was toxic—must be supported by scientific evidence. Labeling D3 as “rat poison” was merely an emotional appeal meant to dismiss any discussion of the regimen outright, as it relies on stirring emotions rather than engaging in a rational debate. Unsurprisingly, Jamie misunderstood my argument, which again led to him accusing me of being a liar, even though I attempted to clarify what I meant multiple times.

Jamie refused to acknowledge my attempts to clarify a poorly written tweet. Rather than disagreeing with him, I was, in fact, agreeing with his position—that an argument challenging the benefits of D3 supplementation was a valid one. Despite my efforts to make this clear, Jamie remained unwilling to see things objectively. Others observing the exchange could plainly see that his refusal to engage fairly was the root of the misunderstanding.

Regardless, I was true to my word, and I blocked Jamie after he continued to repeat accusations that I was a liar.

Jamie persisted in his accusations, claiming that I had a “history of lying,” though he never demonstrated a single lie on my part. He went on to reference a project he was working on, stating that my alleged “history of lying” was the reason I wouldn’t be participating in it, and that I'd come to regret it. His premonition was partly true. While Jamie was wrong that I would not participate in the project, he was right in one respect: I ultimately did come to regret it.

A Second Chance

In late December 2023, Alec Zeck, host of The Way Forward podcast, reached out to me regarding Jamie's project, which aimed to recreate and expand on the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka through the use of Contract Research Organizations (CROs). Alec was aware of the bad blood between Jamie and me but asked if I would consider joining a Telegram discussion group intended to help guide the project. As I have the utmost respect for Alec, and I recognized the value of the goals of the project, I set aside my differences with Jamie and agreed to participate.

Over the next six months, I participated in the discussions, and the initial results were announced in June 2024. Despite our past disagreements, when Jamie shared the preliminary results with the group in May, I offered to support the project by writing an article to promote it and sharing information on my social media platforms. When Jamie asked for my email address to send me the materials for the article, I sent him a message on Telegram with the requested information and expressed appreciation for the work he had commissioned, encouraging him to continue. Jamie followed up with an apology for his past harsh words, admitting he had let his emotions get the better of him. I accepted his apology, believing we are stronger when we work together.

On June 5th, 2024, Jamie sent me the information that he wanted included in the article, which I then reworked and formatted for better presentation.

I sent a rough draft for Jamie's approval, which he felt was a “fantastic write-up.” The article was to be released as part of a coordinated rollout alongside interviews that Jamie was set to do with Alec and Dr. Tom Cowan.

However, the coordinated rollout did not go as planned as the Dr. Cowan interview was postponed, and I was told to release the article at my convenience.

The article was published on June 19th, 2024. While it is no longer available—I retracted the article when I decided to disassociate from the project—at the time, I promoted the project on ViroLIEgy.com, Substack, and on all of my social media accounts.

Even though I released the article in support, I knew there were growing concerns about Jamie, particularly regarding his character based on his past actions and some of his associations. These issues were preventing several prominent individuals from getting involved or lending their support to the project. Since I was on better terms with Jamie at the time, I thought it would be beneficial to address these concerns directly. I reached out to Alec, and we arranged a Zoom meeting between some of the concerned parties with Jamie.

After the Zoom meeting, I thanked everyone for participating and took the opportunity to share a specific concern of mine. I felt it was misleading to label the tests being conducted as scientific experiments. Since the methods used to uphold virology are fundamentally pseudoscientific, any tests performed using those same methods are inherently pseudoscientific as well. These refutation experiments, while valuable for exposing the methodological and logical flaws in virology, still operate within the same unscientific framework. Performing them does not equate to conducting scientific work. There is no way to make cell cultures or other indirect tests genuinely scientific.

In response, Jamie agreed, saying “I hear you on the nomenclature of dealing with Pseudoscience and not getting roped into taking any of their BS too seriously,” acknowledging my point about the importance of being careful with language and framing, particularly when it comes to refuting virology methods rather than supporting them as valid scientific practices. He seemed to understand my concern about the terminology and the risk of inadvertently legitimizing the pseudoscientific practices of virology by calling these experiments “scientific.” However, this point would later become the first of two disagreements that ultimately led to my disassociation from the project.

In response, I provided Jamie with my opinion on areas that would be interesting to dive into in the future of the project.

Everything was fine over the next few months. However, despite his apparent agreement with me about being careful with the nomenclature associated with the project, I kept seeing Jamie referring to the work as scientific in his Substack articles, in his interviews, and in his comments in the Telegram group. I eventually decided to address my concerns with Jamie and the rest of the TG group in October 2024. Unfortunately, I do not have any images of the discussion that took place, but I reminded Jamie why it would be better to stop referring to the work as scientific in order to avoid legitimizing the methodology used by virologists. Although I don’t have records of my own responses, as I didn’t see the need to screenshot them at the time, I did save a brilliant response from Alec defending my position. I had shared it with others, and I’ve added my own emphasis here:

As I understand it, in order for something to be considered a “natural phenomenon” it requires that it is not manipulated or instigated by the investigator.

The following steps don’t necessarily require that it’s not manipulated or instigated by the investigator, as that would make the entire process of varying and manipulating the IV an impossibility.

The cell culture technique is so far removed from reality that I don’t think anyone could possibly make the argument that it relates back to an observed natural phenomenon. The starting point is inherently flawed, so everything downstream is as well. There is no “natural phenomenon” being observed.

With respect to infectious diseases, the closest thing to an observed natural phenomenon is the observation of people getting sick. That has to be the starting place.

Virology doesn’t start there in their foundational evidence, so it can’t possibly be “scientific” even without consideration for the lack of an IV and lack of a negative control.

When describing what Jamie is leading, I don’t describe them as experiments. I say studies. Experiments imply adherence to the scientific method. As I understand it, these don’t adhere to the scientific method either, @JamieAndrews, because we aren’t starting with an observed natural phenomenon. Are they more rigorous than virology’s so-called experiments? Without question. Does that mean they aren’t extremely important? Absolutely not. But it doesn’t make them experiments, either.

I also copied Jamie's response to Alec at the time as he seemed to disregard the importance of the scientific method:

I would just point you back to other comments above as to what constitutes the terms "natural" and what constitutes "Observe"

Both of these terms are subjective with never ending questions stemming all the way back to "are we actual real and observing these things or a computer simulation plugged into the matrix"?

My latest thoughts on the scientific method may lead me to write an article on this (depending on how much tea may be spat out)....

BUT to me actually the "scientific method" smacks of RULES and the STATE. It is like being governed by laws and their interpretations much alike the state's system of hierarchy. Who actually makes the definition of what adheres to the "scientific method"....

Rather than being left to the court of public opinion as to what does represent "reality" to the majority, with the "scientists" own interpretation of the "correct approach" to conduct science.

While I don’t recall the conversation being particularly contentious, I do remember Jamie disregarding my recommendation, and his disdain for the scientific method was concerning. His insistence on referring to the work as scientific, despite it not meeting those standards, left me with serious reservations about remaining part of the project. I let the matter go at the time. However, on December 18th, 2024, Jamie made another concerning remark—this time about PCR—claiming it has some validity in detecting sick people, which raised further red flags for me.

I responded by pointing out that PCR positives do not correlate with illness, as most positives are asymptomatic (i.e. no symptoms of disease). I noted that the inserts for PCR tests explicitly state the test cannot determine causation of disease. I also highlighted critical issues, such as the prevalence problem and the lack of calibration and validation against purified, isolated “virus.” The evidence already demonstrates that PCR tests are fraudulent, and the burden is not on us to prove what is already established.

Jamie's response was to highlight the words “semblance,” “seems,” and “not a burden per se,” which didn’t actually address the points I raised. While I understood his use of qualifiers, they didn’t negate the mass testing data from China, U.S. prisons, and meatpacking plants, which consistently showed the vast majority of positive cases were asymptomatic. This demonstrated there was no correlation between a positive PCR test and disease.

Jamie reiterated his belief in some semblance of a correlation between PCR positives and disease. He then misrepresented my position, claiming I opposed experimentation to disprove PCR. This was never my stance. I simply highlighted that existing evidence already disproves PCR's ability to detect anything specific to sick individuals, rendering further experimentation interesting but unnecessary. The burden lies with those asserting that PCR detects a “virus” in sick individuals to provide the required scientific evidence to support that claim.

However, my concerns were less about conducting further experiments to disprove PCR—a technology that has never been proven to work as claimed for “viruses” in the first place—and more about Jamie's stance on test results correlating with disease. When I sought clarification, Jamie reiterated his belief in a semblance of correlation based on the reagents used. I pointed out again that this is contradicted by mass testing data, which consistently shows that the majority of PCR positives are asymptomatic, further discrediting the notion of a reliable correlation between the test and disease.

Jamie laughed at my comment, so I asked why he found it amusing. I also inquired if he had evidence supporting his claim that positive PCR results correlate with disease—a position contradicting mass testing data and his assertion that PCR is fake and fraudulent. I explained how his stance could be interpreted as validating PCR results. Jamie replied that he was “not interested,” which I understood to mean he had no evidence to support his position.

In his response, Jamie made an even more surprising claim—not only did he believe that positive PCR tests correlated with disease, but he also suggested they “correlated with something expelled during respiratory disease.” This was alarmingly close to asserting that PCR could detect a “virus.” I raised concerns about how this could be used as validation for a fraudulent test, but Jamie misinterpreted my concern as an accusation. His repeated defensiveness made addressing the issue increasingly challenging.

As Jamie continued to frame my concerns as accusations, I asked how he would characterize his claims. Specifically, I wanted to know if he understood how his statements—asserting that positive PCR results correlate with disease and something expelled during respiratory disease—could appear to validate the results of a fraudulent test purported to detect a “virus” under similar conditions. Despite the importance of this clarification, Jamie refused to answer.

I made an attempt to seek clarification on Jamie's claim that the reagents used in PCR tests were responsible for the high asymptomatic rates seen in mass testing. He reiterated his belief that positive PCR results showed a semblance of disease by detecting commonly occurring elements expelled during respiratory symptoms. However, he did not specify what these elements were or explain how a test he himself deemed fake and fraudulent could reliably measure such elements.

Jamie continued accusing me of gaslighting him by saying he was “validating a fraudulent test,” instead of addressing my concerns. I clarified again that his stance could be interpreted as validating PCR's ability to detect something—such as a “virus”—correlating with illness. I explained how mass testing data did not support this claim due to consistently high asymptomatic rates.

For those interested, here are sources supporting this data:

• China: 70% asymptomatic (SCMP), over 90% (VOA News), 98-99% in Shanghai (Yahoo News), and 100% in Wuhan (Nature).

• Meatpacking plants: 85% (News-Leader), 94% (Yahoo), and 100% (Daily Mail).

• Prisons: 99% asymptomatic in Connecticut (Council on Criminal Justice), over 90% in other U.S. prisons (USA Today).

Additional studies reported similar trends globally, such as 86% asymptomatic in the UK and up to 95% in Karachi.

These results repeatedly show that positive PCR results do not correlate with disease or anything specific to respiratory symptoms.

Jamie insisted that I was accusing him of validating fraud and gaslighting him, highlighting our previous conversation on the use of “science” in relation to this project as an example. He then demanded an apology from me.

I was not going to apologize for expressing my concern that Jamie's claims about PCR's ability to detect something in sick individuals correlating with disease could be interpreted as validating PCR. My intent was never accusatory but to raise this issue for discussion in a group meant for collaborative inquiry. When Jamie dismissed mass testing data showing high asymptomatic rates and claimed it only happened in 2020, I asked him for evidence to review. Instead of addressing this, I was banned from the group.

Disassociation

Being removed from the discussion group signaled it was time for me to step back from supporting the project, as my concerns were not being addressed by its leader. I decided to no longer promote it, and that could have been the silent end of it. However, tensions escalated on Twitter a few days later after I shared a quote from Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, about the “antibody” contradiction in HIV/AIDS. In response, one of Jamie's friends tagged his post criticizing Kary Mullis.

I read the argument Jamie made and pointed out that he had misunderstood the quote by Mullis from his book.

This clearly didn’t sit well with Jamie, who jumped into the exchange, accusing me of being a Pharma-lite shill backing an establishment fraudster—an accusation that, by his logic, implied I was a fraud. He referenced his own tweet about Mullis's 1985 patent. However, as anyone familiar with patents knows, they often include any and all theoretical applications, regardless of whether there’s proof the technology can fulfill those claims.

Since Jamie had reopened the line of communication, I decided to ask once again for clarity on his position regarding PCR results. Despite my request for a civil discussion without accusations, Jamie responded with ad hominem attacks, labeling me a liar, an establishment shill, a disingenuous cheat, and accusing me of being a limited hangout.

I asked Jamie to clarify his position without resorting to ad hominem attacks, but he deflected by simply retweeting his previous response, which was filled with insults.

Jamie responded with insults once again, falsely claiming that I had embarrassed myself privately and was now doing so publicly. Recognizing his attempt to insult and deflect, I pressed him to provide an explanation, inviting him to "embarrass" me further.

True to form, Jamie resorted to insults while continuing to assert the positive claim that PCR detects something expelled by those with disease. However, he still had yet to clarify what that “something” was. I pressed him further, asking him to explain what this “something else expelled” might be and to address the mass testing data that contradicted his claims.

In response, Jamie continued to deflect, resorting to insults in an attempt to mask his inability to provide a direct answer. In an obvious pattern, each time I pressed him, he deflected with more insults. It became clear that I was not going to get a meaningful response.

After enduring numerous accusations and ad hominem attacks from Jamie, he finally ended his harassment campaign—or so I thought—by blocking me. As a parting shot, he left a postscript complaining that I had shared “private” Telegram messages. Why Jamie objected to having his thoughts on PCR shared outside the group, I cannot say.

Although I didn’t share the entire exchange (you can read it on Twitter if you’d like), I provided enough of Jamie’s insults and accusations to illustrate why I felt justified in joining Alec Zeck in publicly distancing myself from Jamie due to his behavior.

Crossing the Line

After Jamie banned me from the Telegram group and blocked me on Twitter, I thought—and hoped—that this would be the end of it. We had gone our separate ways, and the lines of communication were closed. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Jamie proceeded to track down both Alec and me on Facebook, claiming that I was waging a campaign against him there; despite asserting he was never on Facebook. His purpose seemed to be continuing the attack.

While I won’t share every response (you can review the exchanges here and here), I want to highlight some examples of the offensive comments Jamie left (warning: there are some vulgar words). In one exchange, he accused me of being a liar, a cheat, and a “disgraceful, cowardly little twat.” He also warned that I would regret calling him a fraud—an accusation I had never made.

Jamie displayed impressive creativity in fabricating fictional stories about myself and the Baileys supposedly waging an aggressive smear campaign against him. For some inexplicable reason, he even included Dr. Stefan Lanka—who, ironically, wanted nothing to do with Jamie's project. I asked Jamie to provide evidence for any of his baseless claims, as with each passing comment, he was only further demonstrating why we were right to distance ourselves from him.

In another exchange, Jamie once again falsely accused me of publicly harassing him and calling him a fraud in private. I pointed out that he had yet to provide any evidence for the accusations he made against me, while I had plenty of receipts to back up my position. I warned him to stop making baseless claims, or I would share everything publicly.

In a rather disgusting exchange, Jamie accused me and others of being “rat poison pushing scumbags” and called me a “complete phag” and a “stupid cunt” for sharing images of our conversations. He also referred to me as a “complete dribbling lunatic.” It was apparent that Jamie was very upset, likely because he wanted to say one thing privately while presenting something different publicly. Regardless, I ended up sharing with Jamie the same sources I had previously mentioned discussing the high asymptomatic rates found in mass testing. For some strange reason, this was one comment he chose not to respond to.

The final straw that led me to block Jamie on Facebook was his comment claiming I was mentally retarded and that he was waiting for an apology from my mother for giving birth to me.

Throughout these various exchanges, I felt that I had endured enough abuse, and Jamie had done an exemplary job of providing numerous examples of why myself and others wanted nothing to do with him anymore. I was happy to walk away from the situation. However, not one to give up, Jamie continued his attacks against me on his Twitter page.

Under a post where Jamie straw manned my position and accused me of “wanting to keep people dancing along the fraud of virology until the next pandemic sweeps around,” someone asked Jamie if he was a Jew. Jamie responded that he was not, but that I was (I'm not), providing a GIF of a Jewish man smiling and winking. While I won’t go into detail about the underlying connotations relating to negative stereotypes associated with Jewish people, this comment was clearly meant as an insult, with implications that were both derogatory and offensive.

However, the worst of Jamie's behavior came when he—hypocritically, I might add—shared a private message between me and the late Bill Houston, a passionate man who worked to raise awareness of the “virus” hoax and the dangers of vaccines. In Jamie's version of events, I was accused of aggressively gaslighting Bill while he was terminally ill with cancer. However, Bill was diagnosed with cancer in February 2024, while the message Jamie shared as an example was from December 2023. Ironically, my comments in that message were about the disunity caused by Jamie and his associates, and had nothing to do with Bill. While we didn't communicate much afterward, I was never on bad terms with Bill. This was a sick attempt by Jamie to smear me with a message I wrote to Bill that was actually about unity.

Jamie failed to share an earlier message that I had sent to Bill in response to his concerns about a falling out he had with some in the “no virus” community. Although Bill had reacted with a “heart” to that message, I’m not sure if he ever followed up on my advice. Regardless, it is further evidence that I was not aggressively gaslighting Bill, and that we were not on bad terms.

Jamie then made another post about Bill, claiming that I, along with the Baileys, Alec, and Christine Massey, gaslit, defamed, and abused Bill while he was suffering from terminal cancer. He called us evil, heartless, cold, cruel, and calculating “pieces of shit” who harassed Bill in an attempt to gain more money and fame. He shared a picture of a sickly thin Bill that I won't share here, hoping that it would haunt us.

This was a disgraceful appeal to emotion, entirely unfounded by any evidence. I never witnessed any harassment toward Bill from anyone, nor did he ever share any evidence of harassment with me or anyone else to my knowledge. While Bill did feel excluded, he still supported my work as well as the work of the Baileys and Christine Massey.

In another post attempting to defend his previous tweet calling me a Jew, Jamie continued to make baseless accusations that I bullied Bill, exploiting his tragic story to appeal to emotions. Rather than taking responsibility for the implications of his derogatory comment, Jamie removed the GIF and disingenuously chose to feign ignorance about its implications.

Why Jamie feels the need to fabricate stories and resort to unfounded, disgusting accusations to fit his narrative is beyond me. If he has any evidence to support these claims, he should present it. I suspect, however, that none will be forthcoming.

Burning Bridges

Hopefully, it is now clear why I, along with others, have chosen to distance ourselves from Jamie Andrews and “The Virology Controls Study Project,” despite any merit it may have. Jamie has used his platform to attack nearly everyone who has spoken out against the pseudoscience of virology. Over the past year and a half, he has made disparaging comments about Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr. Jordan Grant, Dr. Amandha Vollmer, Alec Zeck, Christine Massey, Daniel Roytas, Steve Falconer, and, of course, myself.

Why is Jamie doing this? I have my thoughts, but I won’t speculate. A wise piece of advice I learned from Dr. Cowan is to avoid presuming anyone’s motivations. What I do know is that Jamie’s actions have done nothing to foster unity and have instead created division. Is that truly what Jamie wants? Does he even care?

I’m not convinced that he does. Jamie has repeatedly stated that the “project is a laugh” to him and that he “could not give LESS of a fuck if right now all of my social media was banned and all of the project was lost...to me it’s like a video game getting broken.”

If this is just a video game to Jamie, and he’s pursuing this project solely for laughs, then it likely doesn’t matter to him that his baseless and false accusations do more harm than good. If these statements reflect his true feelings, it’s clear he does not take this topic seriously. It becomes easier to understand why he’s willing to make unfounded accusations and aggressively attack those with whom he has minor disagreements. To him, it’s all just one big joke—a fun little game with no real consequences. Jamie can put the controller down and quit whenever he pleases.

For the rest of us speaking out, however, this is no laughing matter. This is a critical issue that demands serious attention, especially in the wake of the so-called “pandemic.” This is not a game where one can simply walk away without consequences. Exposing the fraud of virology is a serious endeavor, and despite his project, Jamie Andrews’ increasingly reckless behavior undermines that effort. For this reason, I have officially withdrawn from the controls study project, as I cannot, in good conscience, associate with someone who is clearly out of control.