Agreed. Dr. Mark Bailey has plenty of evidence here, however, so this wouldn't apply.
Clearly you didn't read Dr. Mark Bailey's entire paper. In a way, I understand, as you clearly disagree with his basic premises. ESR stands for New Zealand's Institute of Environmental Science and Research, which makes sense considering that Dr. Mark Bailey is based in New Zealand. I only quoted a snippet of his writing on New Zealand's ESR, it's actually part of a much larger tract. Since you expressed some interest in who ESR was, I figure you might be interested in the larger tract itself. The part I quoted was actually the very last paragraph of it, which I include at the end below.
Quoting:
**
VIROLOGY’S LACK OF CONTROLS MEANS IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PURSUIT
OIA requests have revealed that New Zealand’s Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), who have claimed isolation and genomic sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 particle in the Antipodes, are also guilty of failing to perform any valid controls.60 In the tradition of Enders, they have not paused to check whether the CPEs they witnessed, or genomes they assembled via computer simulations, could also be created in valid control comparisons. That is, by performing experiments with other human-derived specimens, from both well subjects and unwell subjects who are said not to have the alleged disease COVID-19. Instead, ESR described their insufficient “negative control” in which, “the flask undergoes the same conditions as the flasks used for viral culture, however we use Infection media only.”
The central conductor in these anti-scientific pursuits is the WHO. It is very telling that in their 94- page “Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2” document, there is a mere four sentences discussing “control samples:”
6.4.2 Control samples
Negative control samples, such as buffer or water, should always be included in any sequencing run that contains multiple samples. They should be included at the earliest stage possible and should proceed with samples through all stages of the sequencing pipeline. This is extremely important to rule out contamination during a sequencing run that occurs in the laboratory or during bioinformatic processing. Positive control samples with known genetic sequences can be useful to validate newly adopted or adapted bioinformatic pipelines for consensus calling, but do not need to be included in every sequencing run.61
However, neither of these controls are sufficient to validate the “genomes” that the virologists are producing through these techniques because they can only serve to calibrate the pipeline. As has become apparent, the WHO cannot point to one valid positive control experiment, yet on February 11, 2020 they named the new disease they had invented, “COVID-19” with the associated claim that it was caused by a novel coronavirus.62 They have provided the green light for anyone around the world to “find” SARS-CoV-2 in their backyards without the need for valid control experiments either. Yet, there is a clear necessity for comparative controls where similar patient samples, but without the alleged virus, are processed in the same way so that only one variable is being tested. Comparing the results of a sample alleged to contain the virus with one of the negative controls described by the WHO’s document above cannot validate the process as the latter samples do not contain the genetic soup that is part of the former. In any case, even on their own terms the negative control referred to by ESR in New Zealand is unable to provide validation of the methodology they are using to create these virus genomes, because as the WHO states, it is simply a precautionary check for contamination.
With all of the failures to culture postulated viruses, modern virology now favours direct metagenomics63 of crude samples, often with shotgun sequencing64 and subsequent artificial assembly of these genetic fragments to create new in silico65 “viruses” out of thin air. This invention then provides other virus hunters with predesigned PCR primer panels66 so that they can also discover the same sequences and claim it is the same virus. ESR were involved in a publication in which they proclaimed the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 in nine subjects through this methodology.67 They were asked by my colleague to provide, “all details of the control group that was used when comparing the results of sequencing,” but instead of answering the question, the ESR made an excuse about not getting involved in the “generation of new data,” and provided some links to SARS-CoV-2 sequencing protocols.68 If ESR were using such protocols, as detailed on the protocol.io site, then we can see that they are endorsing insufficient controls that are described as, “[a] negative control of nuclease-free water,” while an optional “positive control can also be included which may be a synthetic RNA constructs or high-titre clinical sample which can be diluted.”69 Once again, these types of controls can only serve as pipeline calibration techniques, not the validation or the clinical significance of any “genomes” they assemble.
Despite the resources available to them, ESR apparently do not believe in the necessity to check for themselves whether SARS-CoV-2 can be shown to exist. On 19 July 2022, in response to an OIA request they stated that, “ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove the existence of SARS-COV-2 virus and can therefore not provide you with any records.”70 On 17 August 2022 in response to another request, they admitted that, “ESR has not performed any experiments to scientifically prove that [the] SARS-COV-2 virus causes COVID-19 and can therefore not provide you with any records.”71 Nobody else has performed these required scientific experiments either.
**
Full article:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com
