Out of Control Addendum

An Evidence-Based Rebuttal to the Most Serious Claims Made Against Me

This is an addendum to my December 30th, 2024, article Out of Control, which detailed my disassociation from Jamie Andrews and the Virology Controls Study Project due to his conduct. In that article, I provided direct evidence debunking the false and libelous claims he had made against me. At the time, I hoped that would be the end of it.

Unfortunately, Jamie has since used Out of Control as a springboard for further defamatory attacks. Most notably, he has escalated his accusations by falsely claiming that I am a criminal under FBI investigation for doxxing a scientist involved in his project. These claims are not only entirely baseless—they are dangerous.

Despite my initial decision to step away from the drama, Jamie continued his attacks on social media and has now written a new article published on July 28th, 2025, titled Controlled Opposition, in which he makes additional libelous and defamatory allegations, this time not only against me but also against several of my colleagues. While I will not speak on their behalf, I will directly address the most serious accusations levied at me, using verifiable evidence to expose them for what they are: lies intended to distract from his own misconduct.

This pattern of fabrication and projection is not new. Jamie repeatedly uses falsehoods to attack others while refusing to take responsibility for his own actions. My goal here is not to engage in personal attacks, but to present the facts. When someone is caught in one lie, their credibility is damaged. When they are caught in multiple lies—especially ones meant to smear others and rewrite reality—they have no credibility left to stand on.

What follows are the three central allegations Jamie has made against me, along with the direct evidence that dismantles each one and highlights how he has used these falsehoods to cover up his own behavior.

False Claim # 1: I was kicked out of the “Critical No Virus” Telegram group for asking Dr. Mark Bailey to clarify the Baileys’ stance on Vitamin D.

According to Jamie’s revisionist account, I was kicked out of the “Critical No Virus” group in November 2023 for “gaslighting, lying, and entrapment.” Here’s his version of events:

“No, our Compadre in fighting the common enemy had received his orders from his master, So he didn’t stop there. He duly gaslit and lied to numerous of his previous squad mates until he was kicked from the Telegram group. Now instead of calming down, his ego had been bruised and he had to get payback for people having private dissenting opinions of his paymasters who at this time were advertising his new Substack and Blog heavily and sending their drove of low information sheep followers to be Sergeant Stone’s new paid subs- his on boarding into being CONTROLLED Opposition had begun, as the rest of the article will outline.”

He then doubled down on this fabricated timeline:

“What confirms the EXACT timeline of how this all transpired and the TRUTH that it was indeed an unsolicited ATTACK on me by numerous members of No Virus Inc, is that AFTER he was kicked out of our Telegram Group for lying, gaslighting and entrapment he THEN took to attacking ME on Twitter, when I made a post on my opinions (with heavily referenced material) on the FACT that Vit D is Rat poison.”

Yet, Jamie contradicts his own narrative later in the same rant, stating:

“Part of our original Telegram group after Sergeant Stone left, there was a tenured Scientist whom was no shrinking violet…”

Why claim I was kicked out earlier in the piece, only to later state that I left?

The answer is simple: Jamie knows the truth, but the truth doesn’t support the narrative he's trying to construct. I was not kicked out. I voluntarily left the group because I was increasingly uncomfortable with the hostility and personal attacks being directed at people I respect—such as Dr. Cowan, Dr. Kaufman, and the Baileys. Members of the group were not only promoting baseless accusations, but also resorting to insults when confronted with disagreement.

I asked for civil discourse and requested that the chat remain respectful. That request was ignored.

Before leaving, I sent the same message I gave to the group explaining my decision to a friend, out of concern it might be deleted after my departure.

Jamie himself liked that message (he is the “JA” with the thumbs-up icon).

Jamie acknowledged my voluntary exit. He knew I wasn’t kicked out. But since that truth doesn’t serve his smear campaign, he replaced it with a convenient fiction.

False Claim # 2: I harassed and tormented a terminally ill Bill Huston.

Jamie has falsely accused me of harassing and bullying the late Bill Huston, even suggesting that I—along with others—was in part responsible for Bill’s death. He wrote:

“This entire thread is distressing where Bill names Alec Zeck, Christine Massey, Mark Bailey and Mike Stone (In private messages to me and others) as the bullies publicly tormenting him.”

“These people as a collective that bullied, tormented and harassed him are all are very firm believers of fear and state of mind being a driver for disease. In the case of Alec Zeck, he advocates German New medicine which states that cancers are directly caused by emotional trauma. It is therefore no stretch to say that by a measure of their OWN beliefs they are responsible at the very least in part for the early death of Bill.”

These are deeply misleading and offensive claims.

First, the thread Jamie referenced does not mention me at all. There is no public or private evidence that Bill ever accused me of bullying or harassment. Jamie’s statement is a gross distortion—and I’ve already addressed it in my previous article, which I will summarize here for clarity.

However, the worst of Jamie's behavior came when he—hypocritically, I might add—shared a private message between me and the late Bill Huston, 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.

Yes, Bill did share with me (before his diagnosis) that he was in a dark emotional space and struggling with his health. I did what I could to support him, and at no point did I ever harass, bully, or “torment” him. I respected Bill and his contributions to the “no virus” discussion, even if we didn’t agree on everything.

Jamie’s accusations are not only false—they are libelous and disgusting. They show a complete disregard for truth and for the dignity of someone who is no longer here to speak for himself.

False Claim # 3: I “doxxed” a scientist working on his project.

Doxxing is commonly defined as the act of collecting and publicly sharing someone’s private or personally identifiable information—without their consent—with the intent to shame, embarrass, intimidate, or expose them. While definitions may vary slightly, the essential element is intent to cause harm through exposure. Jamie has claimed that a scientist working on his project was fired from a $150k-a-year position after being “doxxed,” and that I—and by extension, the Baileys and Alec Zeck—were responsible. However, according to his narrative, this doxxing occurred before the project was even publicly announced. While he initially blamed Twitter trolls, he later became convinced it was the Baileys who orchestrated the “doxxing” after organizing what he described as a four-hour “interrogation” involving him and the scientist a few months after the alleged doxxing:

“A few months past and BAM, this scientist gets pulled into the management office of his Laboratory, someone had rung in and said they had “An AntiVax Twitter account” and they were terminating their contract.

At the time I thought this must have been the Mutton Co Trolls as they had previously threatened to dox him. But how would they? He had a name tag which revealed his first name, but it is an extremely common first name and would be IMPOSSIBLE to find someones place of work from just their first name. It was so very highly unlikely it was a Colleague that rang in because they mentioned it was to do with an anonymous Twitter Persona, unless one of his colleagues happened to be both an incredibly evil snitch as well as spent most of their time scrolling twitter to stumble across the incredibly niche corners of No Virus Twitter, this idea is for the birds.

So WHO was it?

The Baileys organized an interrogation of myself and this scientist just a few months later , with a barrage of questions for nearly 4 hrs at the hands of Christine Massey who was recording the interrogation to send to the Baileys (How sinister, who do they think they are Dr. Evil?). This was on the proviso that if they were “satisfied” (Again Creepy much) they might join the project. This was the day before agreeing to do an interview with Cowan when Mark Bailey who for 4 months had seemingly been not interested. They asked lots of probing questions about DPL, who he was, what capacity he had in the project.

On numerous occasions Alec had rung me with a pretty transparent story that he needed to find out where DPL worked because he thought he was a CIA asset. Honestly, in hindsight this is ludicrously obvious that these were an order from the Baileys to try and Dox DPL and ruin his life ( Yes these people are THAT evil).

So this scientist lost their $150k a year job and went into a pretty severe depression, but in a certain sense was struggling with coming to terms with the fact their profession was a lie. So there was some acceptance to just move on.”

Let’s break this down.

1. The Baileys had nothing to do with the Zoom call.

Jamie’s entire accusation hinges on the idea that the Baileys “organized” this supposed interrogation that occurred after the alleged doxxing. That’s false.
I was the one who reached out to Alec Zeck to address the concerns surrounding Jamie and his project. Alec agreed to facilitate a Zoom call and asked me to gather the interested individuals.

The Baileys explicitly declined to be involved in any part of it from the start—and they were not present, nor involved in the planning or discussion.

In fact, after I initially emailed the concerned individuals to suggest a Zoom call, it was Jamie who followed up a few days later to schedule it.

Despite Jamie's fantasies, the Baileys, Dr. Cowan and Dr. Kaufman have had little, if anything, to do with him. Jamie insinuates that they are all conspiring against him when, as far as I know, none of them have (or desire to have) any relationship with him. All of these doctors remain focussed on their own research and publications, as they have done since early 2020.

2. The call was not a “four-hour interrogation.”

The Zoom call lasted 1 hour, 36 minutes, and 31 seconds—not four hours. The participants asked direct but respectful questions regarding the scientific and structural aspects of the project, as well as concerns about past statements and associations. Everyone on the call was informed it would be recorded beforehand.

There was no ambush, no interrogation, and no hidden agenda. It was a civil discussion about concerns—hardly the sinister inquisition Jamie now tries to portray.

3. The timeline disproves Jamie’s claim.

Jamie claimed that this “interrogation” occurred the day before he agreed to an interview with Dr. Cowan. This is verifiably false.

• Dr. Cowan publicly announced the planned interview on June 12th, 2024, with the interview scheduled for the following week.

• The Zoom call in question took place on July 1st, 2024—nearly three weeks after the announcement.

So not only was the Zoom call unrelated to Jamie’s decision to interview with Dr. Cowan, but it happened after that interview was already in the works and subsequently postponed.

4. The supposed “doxxing” doesn’t track.

The scientist in question had already posted multiple images of himself publicly on the internet and across social media—including photos in his lab, his visible name badge, and his full name. If someone did contact his employer, it had nothing to do with me, Alec, Christine, or the Baileys. None of us had any involvement in revealing personal details—because there were no private details to reveal.

However, Jamie claimed that the identity of the scientist was accidentally revealed during a brief visual in his June 2024 interview with Alec Zeck—shifting the accusation for the alleged doxxing onto Alec:

“So we released the results of the project on Alec Zecks show and strangely there was a 0.05 second edit which showed this scientist behind the scenes. Why it was in there struck me as odd and also how exceptionally quickly the MuttonCo Trolls got a hold of it. But whatever, not like Alec tried to dox anyone else right?”

But by Jamie’s own account, the story doesn’t add up. He claims:

• The “MuttonCo Trolls” already had the scientist’s name from his public social media, where he had shared images of himself, his lab, and his visible work badge.

• He had already been “doxxed” and fired from his job prior to the interview with Alec, as well as before the Zoom call on July 1st, 2024.

Despite this contradictory timeline, Jamie now claims that I doxxed the scientist by including a screenshot of a public email showing his name and role in the project in my article that came out December 30th, 2024—something he asserts I refused to remove for “three weeks,” despite threats of legal action.

“A week passes and I am in one of my many slugfests with SenseStrand, an almost Sergeant Stone Level Harassing Troll from the Mutton Crew. He just casually drops mid sentence the full name of the Scientist involved in my project. I was gobsmacked. How did this troll who was part of a group of people who literally threaten to dox and kill this man know his FULL name.

Well it turns out….Mike Stone told them….

Here is another odious member of the Mutton Crew displaying a private email communication that Mike Stone had publicized!!! In this excerpt Burki (The Slightly smaller Twat than Stoney) had blocked out the full name in the email section at the top which Stone had publicized on ALL his social media platforms. It openly shows the exact roll of this scientist and their name. I even had to scrub THIS out as THIS was then publicized by Burki unwittingly everywhere.

Now, I immediately sent an email to Mike to tell him to take it down or I would be pressing charges. Mike did not answer this email and the dox stayed live for 3 WEEKS.

The Pathological Liar then has contorted and squirmed around this subject for months. Trying to claim that he did not in fact do exactly what he is admitting in his own words. Above he says that he had to ask this Scientist whether they didn’t want to be doxxed, confirmed that he had actually doxxed them, then after 3 WEEKS and everyone knew and it had circulated the internet, didn’t remove the emails which put this person in the exact role he is claiming, just put a line through the name.”

It’s true that I ignored Jamie’s email threats sent on January 7th, 2025, accusing me of doxxing a scientist connected to his project. Given my extensive history with Jamie’s dishonest and erratic behavior, I find it difficult to take anything he says at face value—especially when it comes cloaked in threats.

Here’s what actually happened:

1. Jamie’s timeline contradicts itself.

Jamie’s own claims confirm that the scientist’s name and identity were already public long before my article. The idea that I introduced new, private information is baseless. The scientist himself acknowledged to me in prior conversations that he had already been doxxed and fired, and that he was planning to speak publicly about the project. In October 2024, I even reached out to ask if he’d speak to Eric Coppolino—something he declined at the time, while reiterating that he intended to speak eventually.

There was no accusation of “doxxing” during that exchange—despite me clearly inquiring about his involvement on behalf of a journalist.

2. He requested name removal—and I complied immediately.

Contrary to Jamie’s claim, I never reached out to the scientist about Jamie's accusations, and it certainly didn’t take me three weeks to remove the name. I did not receive a direct request from the scientist to remove his name until January 9th, 2025, at 6:19 AM. That request came after a mutual friend contacted me the day before, asking about Jamie’s claims. I told the mutual contact I’d gladly remove the name if the scientist himself made the request—and it was that friend who then chose to reach out to the scientist directly.

Once he emailed me, I removed his name by 6:54 AM—within 35 minutes of receiving the request—not even remotely close to the three weeks Jamie claims. I later replied at 3:07 PM to confirm the change.

He responded the following day with a kind, gracious message wishing me and my family well—hardly the tone one would expect from someone who felt harmed or betrayed.

3. He never accused me of doxxing him.

Not once did the individual say I doxxed him, nor did he suggest that the article had put him in danger. In fact, in a public Telegram chat (ViroLIEgy), another member stated that I had not doxxed him—and the scientist declined to correct that claim.

He also made it clear in that same public group that he had been involved in the project.

Months after Jamie began pushing the doxxing narrative, this same individual wrote to me that he believed I was “a good man” and said he appreciated me. That doesn’t sound like someone who feels I exposed or endangered him.

4. Jamie is using "doxxing" as a rhetorical weapon.

Jamie has repeatedly tried to frame me as a criminal actor—someone who maliciously revealed private information to harm a colleague. That’s simply not true. There was no malicious intent, and the information in question was already publicly available. His anger over the association between this individual and his project does not make my actions illegal—or even unethical.

Ironically, Jamie has previously argued that malicious intent is irrelevant. Yet, in a bizarre attempt to legitimize his personal vendetta, he used AI to support his accusations. As seen in the screenshot above, the AI response he relied on in the past actually undermines his claim—it explicitly states that intent and purpose are important factors in determining criminality.

However, Jamie continues to insist that intent doesn’t matter and that crimes do not require intent—a claim that defies both legal standards and basic logic. He also alleges that the anonymity of the individual was “very well known,” yet he provides no proof whatsoever to support this assertion.

Here’s Jamie, in his own words:

“Now at the start is yet another big FUCKING HONKING LIE perpetuated by Criminal Mike, which is “Doxing Requires Malicious Intent”. Anybody who is even vaguely au fait with the law or indeed basic logic will know this can’t possibly be true. No Crime REQUIRES intent, it is just a crime to a greater extent like Premeditated Murder is to Manslaughter . But just in case you need it in writing.

So yet another one of Criminal Mike Stone’s rank lies exposed. He has infringed the law by publicly identifying this scientist whom confirmed WITH HIM that he DID NOT WANT TO BE IDENTIFIED. This was of course VERY WELL KNOWN behind the scenes, EXPLICITLY saying that they were to remain anonymous. So pretending otherwise is……. yet another lie (There is LOTS MORE).”

Since Jamie seems to rely heavily on AI as his legal authority, let me respond in terms he might understand:

I have repeatedly asked Jamie to provide actual evidence of any crime, or to substantiate his claim that there is an active FBI investigation, as he frequently alleges. Unsurprisingly, he has failed to produce either.

Why has Jamie been so adamant in changing the timeline of the alleged doxxing, and why is he trying to pin it on me? It is because the MuttonCo Trolls he originally blamed for the doxxing said that it was Jamie's own article titled Laboratory Video Documentation of the Cell Culture Isolation Controls and Method published on January 6th, 2025—which contained numerous videos taken by the scientist in his lab performing the cell culture experiments—that led to them identifying him.

This obviously conflicts with Jamie's statement that the scientist was a “neutral party.” Instead of acknowledging that his own article revealed enough clues for others to identify the scientist and expose his dishonesty, Jamie has chosen to smear me and shift the blame for something he himself did. Rather than owning his role in the situation, he continues to accuse others in an effort to deflect from his own mistakes.

Apparently not one to learn from his mistakes, Jamie has since doubled down, again misapplying the term doxxing to accuse me of exposing another scientist. In this instance, my supposed “crime” was sharing with a Facebook friend my belief of who was behind the Research Integrity Substack. In Jamie’s world, merely stating a belief is treated as presenting proof. But in reality, a speculative belief—clearly labeled as such—is not proof of anything.

“So obviously given the insidious, underhand and destructive nature of Doxxing I can’t show you the image of them doing this as it will…. well…. dox him. But needless to say I will show you a couple of excerpts of the thread.

This one, where an ongoing, deranged conspiracy theory has been touted by NVI that a friend of mine (Research Integrity) is actually a sock account of mine. Mike Stone, as helpful as he can be pops up….. and DOXXES the private name of this account. 2 things: This person is ALSO a tenured scientist that after this incident feared for the safety of his job. Secondly the Criminal Mike Stone got this information from RI Subscribing to his Substack channel.

A word of recommendation. If any of this article is giving you an uneasy feeling about this guy I would highly advise you unsubscribe from his channel, because at any time if you happen to aggravate this aggressive, stalking sociopathic liar, he could fish through your data and publish it.”

Ironically, it was Jamie himself who once again “doxxed” his own friend—this time by publicly confirming that my speculation was correct in his tweet.

Jamie later claimed that I had identified this person because they had subscribed to my Substack. However, there is no record of this individual ever subscribing. My speculation was based on prior interactions with this person on Facebook and Telegram, along with my familiarity with their graphic design style, meme aesthetics, and writing tone. It was clearly labeled as speculation—nothing more. Jamie was the one who turned that speculation into confirmation.

This is part of a clear and repeated pattern with Jamie: he publicly shares identifying details—sometimes inadvertently, sometimes carelessly—and then turns around to accuse others of the very act he initiated. Whether through screenshots, quotes, or confirmations, it is Jamie himself who makes the connection possible. When the consequences follow, he shifts the blame, insisting others are responsible for outcomes that stem directly from his own actions. This tactic not only undermines his credibility but reveals a troubling refusal to take responsibility for his own role in the situations he instigates.

Bonus False Claim: Jamie only mentioned to one “nameless faceless troll” that he was a “MultiMillionaire that lives in a Chateau in France.”

In Jamie’s own words:

“In one of these, I was interacting with a nameless faceless troll that had just called me a Pedophile. I said words to the effect of “I’m a MultiMillionaire that lives in a Chateau in France”. I just spout shit to antagonize cunts online if that is what they are doing to me. If I was really a MultiMillionaire do you really think I would be building the house that I live in that had not running water, electricity and roof made of asbestos tiling with my bare hands, on my own?”

Unsurprisingly, this is false.

Below are three separate occasions where Jamie made similar multimillionaire claims to three different individuals:

• Example 1

• Example 2

• Example 3

In a Telegram conversation with a friend of mine, Jamie went even further—claiming he was a millionaire by age 18, that he grew up around millionaires “in very high places,” and that he now runs a multimillion-pound property investment company. He also stated that if all his social media were banned and the project were lost, he wouldn’t care, likening it to a video game getting broken. To Jamie, this project is just a laugh.

The Enemy in the Mirror

Jamie’s pattern is unmistakable: he makes bold claims that repeatedly fall apart under even mild scrutiny, lashes out when challenged, and blames others for the fallout of his own actions. From inflating his wealth and status, to distorting events like the Zoom call, to falsely accusing others of doxxing while openly broadcasting private details himself, Jamie has shown a consistent inability to take responsibility for anything he says or does. He sees enemies around every corner, convinced that others are out to sabotage him—but the truth is far simpler and sadder: his greatest saboteur is the man staring back at him in the mirror. Until Jamie confronts that fact, the cycle of blame, deception, and self-destruction will only continue, and he will remain hopelessly out of control.