Yes indeed - he recreated the same cell death claimed to be caused by viruses in cell cultures, without adding samples from infected people. Same result virologists claimed was proof of ncov sars2 presence in early 2020, which they then used as proof of the virus by showing magnified cell debris/decay - calling it isolation.
Discussion
He uses human epithelial cells instead of veroe6 (monkey kidney epithelial cells) which were used in both the bat study he referenced and the original US SARS-COV-2 study. In both of those cases CPE was seen in 2 days (2nd single day blind pass), whereas he ran multiple 5 day passes.
An appropriate comparison in this case would have been to obtain a research virus sample of some sort and run the test on infected tissue and non infected tissue at the same time.
Alternatively he could have obtained veroe6 cells and performed the test over the same period of time as the paper he is replicating. If he doesn't get the same result in 2 days, how can he suggest that the virus is having no effect?
Both the bat and SARS-COV-2 papers also include TEM, PCR analysis and full genome sequences for their respective viruses. This is important because TEM (which he didn't perform) is part of the isolation process for viruses. From the bat paper:
Virus isolation
Vero E6 cell monolayers were maintained in DMEM supplemented with 10% FCS. PCR-positive samples (in 200 μl buffer) were gradient centrifuged at 3,000–12,000g, and supernatant were diluted 1:10 in DMEM before being added to Vero E6 cells. After incubation at 37 °C for 1 h, inocula were removed and replaced with fresh DMEM with 2% FCS. Cells were incubated at 37 °C for 3 days and checked daily for cytopathic effect. Double-dose triple antibiotics penicillin/streptomycin/amphotericin (Gibco) were included in all tissue culture media (penicillin 200 IU ml−1, streptomycin 0.2 mg ml−1, amphotericin 0.5 μg ml−1). Three blind passages were carried out for each sample. After each passage, both the culture supernatant and cell pellet were examined for presence of virus by RT–PCR using primers targeting the RdRP or S gene. Virions in supernatant (10 ml) were collected and fixed using 0.1% formaldehyde for 4 h, then concentrated by ultracentrifugation through a 20% sucrose cushion (5 ml) at 80,000g for 90 min using a Ty90 rotor (Beckman). The pelleted viral particles were suspended in 100 μl PBS, stained with 2% phosphotungstic acid (pH 7.0) and examined using a Tecnai transmission electron microscope (FEI) at 200 kV.
He says that RNA "next-generation" sequencing was performed but:
Sequence and extracellular vesicle analyses are ongoing.
So was there follow up to this? Did he confirm that analysis showed no contamination from the drawn out testing performed?
You are free to contact him and ask