The Virus Misconception

The Virus Misconception

Measles as an example

Dr Stefan Lanka

Contrary to what most people believe, pathogenic viruses do not exist. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historic misinterpretations and not, as I thought in the past – on fraud or deliberate deception.

We now have new, better, and in the positive meaning of the word “scientific” discoveries and explanations for the origin, therapy and prevention of many diseases, some of which are still called “viral” today.

The phenomenon of simultaneous or subsequent appearance of symptoms in different persons, which has been until now interpreted as contagion and was believed to be caused by the transmission of pathogens, is now also easy to understand through new discoveries. Thus, we now have a new view of life (which in reality is an old view) and of the cosmological integration of biological processes.

The “new”, but in reality only re-discovered perspective could only originate outside of the official “science”; one of the reasons for this is that the people involved in scientific institutions do not fulfil their first and most important scientific duty – to permanently doubt and question everything. Otherwise, they would have already discovered that the misinterpretation had been taking place for a long time already and had become a dogma only by means of unscientific activities in the years 1858, 1953 and 1954.

The transition to a new explanation of health, disease and healing will only succeed because all the concerned therapists and scientists can save face with it. From history and within the new perspective on biology and life, we now also have explanations of emotions, ignorance and all kinds of human behaviour. This is the second optimistic message. Turning around and forgiving the errors of the past can take place even more effectively, the more one understands what happened and learns for the future.

I am aware that for all the people directly involved, such as doctors, virologists, health care professionals, and above all for the people affected by the system, who suffer under misdiagnoses or who have even lost relatives on account of it, it may be difficult to intellectually accept the explanation of reality that I will offer in this article. In order that the germ theory doesn’t develop a dangerous momentum, as was the case with AIDS, BSE, SARS, MERS, Corona and various other animal flu cases, or even lead to a public order breakdown, I am politely asking all the people who are discovering just now the facts about the “non-existence” of the alleged viruses to discuss the topic in an objective and unemotional manner.

The current situation

All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations. The real causes of diseases and phenomena which are ascribed to viruses have already been discovered and researched; this knowledge is now available. All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells that were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus.

In reality, those prepared tissues and cells are dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.

Virologists primarily believe in the existence of viruses, because they add allegedly “infected” blood, saliva or other body fluids to the tissue and cell culture, and this, it must be stressed, after having withdrawn the nutrients from the respective cell culture and after having started poisoning it with toxic antibiotics. They believe that the cell culture is then killed by viruses. The key insight, however, is that the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact! According to the most basic scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation”, in order to see whether it was not the method itself causing or falsifying the result, the scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell culture. This, of course, to check whether it is not the method itself that yields or falsifies the results.

These control experiments have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform these control experiments and the result was that the tissues and cells die, due to the laboratory conditions, in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.

The entire purpose of control experiments is to exclude the possibility that it is the applied method or technique which may cause the result. Control experiments, then, are the highest duty in science and also the exclusive basis of claiming that one’s conclusion is scientific. During the measles virus trial it was the legally appointed expert – Dr. Podbielski, see further in this article – who stated that the papers which are crucial for the entire science of virology contain no control experiments. From this we can conclude that the respective scientists have been working extremely unscientifically, and this without even noticing it.

This completely unscientific approach originated in June 1954, when an unscientific and refutable speculative article was published, according to which the death of tissue in a test tube was considered a possible evidence for the presence of a virus. Six months later, on 10 December 1954, the main author of this opinion was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for another equally speculative theory. The speculation from June 1954 was then raised to a scientific fact due to this distinction [1] and became a dogma which has never been challenged to this date. Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus.

The apparent evidence for the existence of viruses

The death of tissues/cells is also regarded as the isolation of a virus, because they claim that something from the outside, from another organism, was presumably brought into the laboratory. The fact is and remains that a virus has never been, the fact is and remains that a virus has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation – has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation, and it has never been photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique structure. The electron micrographs of the alleged viruses, for example, really only show cellular particles from dying tissue and cells, and most photos show only a computer model (CGI – computer generated images). Because the involved parties BELIEVE that the dying tissue and cells transform themselves into viruses, their death is also regarded as propagation of the virus. The involved parties still believe this because the discoverer of this method was awarded the Nobel Prize and his papers remain the reference papers on “viruses”. More about this below.

It is important to mention that this unpurified mixture consisting of dying tissue and cells from monkeys, bovine fetuses and toxic antibiotics, is also being used as a “live” vaccine, because it is supposed to be composed of “attenuated” viruses. The death of tissue and cells – on account of starvation and poisoning and not because of an alleged infection – has continuously been misinterpreted as evidence for the existence of viruses, as evidence for their isolation and as evidence of their propagation.

Thus, the resulting toxic mixture full of foreign proteins, foreign nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), cytotoxic antibiotics, microbes and spores of all types is labelled as a “live vaccine”. It is implanted in children through vaccination mainly into the muscles, in a quantity which if it were injected into the veins would immediately lead to certain death. Only ignorant people who blindly trust in the state authorities who are “testing”and approving the vaccines can regard vaccination as a “small harmless prick”.

The verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of these scientists and politicians, who claim that vaccines are safe, have little or no side-effects and would protect us from a disease. None of these claims is true and scientific, on the contrary: upon precise scientific analysis, one finds that vaccines are useless and the respective literature admits to the lack of any evidence in their favour. [2]

Individual molecules are extracted from the components of dead tissue and cells, they are misinterpreted to be part of a virus and are theoretically put together into a virus model.

It must be stressed, that a real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. This is because the process to come to such a description is not done by any scientific method, but purely by means of consensus, in which the participants traditionally argue for years on what pieces of genetic code “belong” to the “virus” and what pieces don’t. In the case of the measles virus, for example, this has taken several decades.

Surprisingly, in the case of the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process has lasted only a few mouse clicks.

With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment”, can result in the “complete” genetic material of a virus which could then be called its genome. In this process of theoretical construction of the so-called “viral DNA or viral RNA strands”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a RNA or DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.

In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a viral DNA or RNA strand, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “conceptual” construction of the “RNA strand” of the measles virus with its short fragments of cellular particles lacks more than half of the genetic sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented. [3]

The Chinese scientists, who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China-Coronavirus-2019 was theoretically constructed [4] probably originate from poisonous snakes, are just as much the victims of the global misconception regarding “viruses” as we all are.

The more viral genetic sequences are invented in the aforementioned way, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. As such, and quite ironically, there is method to the error. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory. [5]

The Virus Tests

Due to the lack of negative control experiments, it hasn’t yet occurred to the involved scientists that all tests for “viruses” will result in a certain number of “positives”, depending on the sensitivity of the calibration of the testing equipment. The templates that are used in the tests that supposedly find “viruses” don’t come from “viruses”, but rather from the tissue, cells and foetal serum (blood without specific components) coming from animals, mainly monkeys and calves. Because these animals are biochemically very similar to us humans, it is clear that such particles, which are misinterpreted as viral particles, can be found in all humans by means of “virus tests”. Some “viruses” and their vaccines – although not the measles “virus”– actually originate from aborted human foetuses. It is especially eye-opening here that all the tests detect molecules which exist in every human being and that vaccines can cause particularly dangerous allergic reactions, which have been named “auto-immune diseases”.

The use of foetal serum, considered to be “liquid” tissue, slows down the death of the cells and tissues under examination so much that, without it, most of these experiments could never be carried out in the first place. Only the employment of foetal serum is useful to these scientists, neither serum coming from adult living beings, nor any other synthetic product can be a substitute. One of the most contaminated und impure components of vaccines is the bovine foetal serum, without which the tissue and cells in the laboratory don’t grow at all or don’t grow quickly enough, and which is extracted in the most gruesome manner from foetuses without anaesthesia. It contains all kinds of known and unknown microbes, their spores and a huge number of unknown proteins. Besides the particles from monkey kidney tissue, it is also particles of this foetal serum that scientists are extracting and analysing when they believe that they are putting together a “virus”, which does not exist and was never proven in the entire “scientific” literature as a whole “virus”.

Because the vaccines are exclusively manufactured on the basis of these substances, this explains why it is especially the vaccinated people who test “positive” to all these imaginary “viruses” from which vaccines are manufactured. The tests only react to animal particles of the alleged viruses, animal proteins or nucleic acids which are often identical or very similar to human proteins and nucleic acids. The virus tests do not find anything specific, certainly nothing “viral” and on account of this they are worthless. The consequences, however, as we have seen with Ebola, HIV, Influenza etc., are that people become paralyzed with fear and they often die due to the very dangerous treatment.

It is noteworthy that no so-called “virus test” has a “yes” or “no” result, rather they are calibrated in a way that they can be interpreted as “positive” only after a particular concentration level has been reached. Thus, one can arbitrarily test “positive” just a few people, many people, none or all people and animals, according to the calibration of the test kit. The dimension of this entire scientific illusion becomes clear as soon as we understand that otherwise quite “normal” symptoms are only diagnosed as AIDS, BSE, flu, measles etc. if there is a “positive” test for it.

Crucial Details

Up to 1952, the virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme directly poisoning the body, and that it was somehow multiplied by the body itself and would spread in the body as well as between people and between animals.

Medicine and science gave up on this idea in 1951, because the suspected virus had never been seen in an electron microscope and, above all, no control experiments had ever been carried out. It was acknowledged that even healthy animals, organs and tissue would release the same decay products during the decomposing process that had been previously misinterpreted as “viruses”. Virology had refuted itself. [6]

However, when the wife of the later Nobel prize winner Crick drew a double helix and this drawing was published in the famous scientific magazine Nature as an alleged scientifically developed model of the supposed DNA, a new and very successful hype began, the so-called molecular genetics. From that moment on, the causes of disease were thought to be in the genes. The idea of a virus changed and over night a virus was no longer a toxin, but rather a dangerous genetic sequence, a dangerous DNA, a dangerous viral strand etc. This new genetic virology was founded by young chemists who had no idea about biology and medicine, but they had unlimited research money. And most probably they didn’t know that the old virology had already refuted itself and given up.

For over 2000 years we have the saying: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”. Since 1995, since we asked the questions about the evidence and published the answers, we can add: “ For they can’t admit that what they have learned and practiced isn’t true and, and stronger even, that it is dangerous and even lethal”. Because nobody until now understood the entire context and had the courage to say the truth, we now have even more “evil spirits” (quoting Goethe) and subsidiary hypotheses, such as the “immune system” or “epigenetics”, merely in order to maintain the fictitious theories.

In origin, the idea of a virus arose from the forced logic of the dogma of cellular theory . Then came the idea of the pathogenic bacteria, the bacterial toxins, then the viral toxins, until this idea was finally given up in 1952. Starting with 1953, Virchow’s idea of a disease poison (Latin for: “poison”) became the genetic virus, which in turn gave birth to the idea of the cancer genes. Then we had the “war against cancer” of the Nixon era, and later the idea of genes for everything appeared.

In the year 2000, however, the entire genetic theory was refuted as well, after the contradictory data of the so-called human genome project was published together with the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been mapped, even though more than half of it was completely invented. [7]

People are not aware that it is very difficult for the respective academics to admit that they were involved in such misconceptions.

The so-called bacteria-eaters

The source for the idea of a genetic virus in humans, animals and plants, which started to develop from 1953 onwards, were the so-called bacteria-eaters, called (bacterio)phages, which had drawn the attention of scientists since 1915. From 1938 on, when commercially available electron microscopes were applied in research, these phages could be photographed, isolated as whole particles and all their components could be biochemically determined and characterised. This is real, and cannot be contested. To isolate them, i.e. concentrate the particles and separate them from all other components (=isolation), to photograph them immediately in the isolated state and to biochemically characterise them all in one go – this, however, has never happened with the alleged viruses of humans, animals and plants because these do not exist.

The scientists researching bacteria and phages, who worked with actual existing structures, provided a model as to what human, animal and plant viruses could look like. However, the “phage experts” have overlooked by their misinterpretation of phages as bacteria eaters that the phenomenon of the formation of these particles is caused by the extreme inbreeding of bacteria. This effect, i.e. the formation and release of phages (bacteria eaters, aka bacteria viruses), doesn’t happen amongst pure bacteria, freshly extracted from an organism or the environment. When their nutrients are withdrawn slowly or their living conditions become impossible, normal bacteria – that is: bacteria which are not grown in the lab – create the known survival forms, the spores, which can survive for a long time or even “eternally”.

From spores, new bacteria appear as soon as the living conditions improve.

However, isolated bacteria, when grown in the lab, lose all characteristics and abilities. Many of them do not perish automatically through this in-breeding, but rather turn suddenly and completely into small particles, which in the “good versus evil” theory perspective have been misinterpreted as bacteria-eaters. In reality, bacteria originate from these exact “phages” and they turn back again into these life forms when the living conditions are no longer available. Günther Enderlein (1827–1968) described exactly these processes more than a century ago: how bacteria appear from invisible structures, their development into more complex forms and back again. That is why Enderlein did not agree with the cell theory, according to which life appears from cells and is organised at cellular level. [8] As a young student, I myself isolated such a “phage” structure from a sea algae. and believed at that time to have discovered the first harmless virus, the first stable “virus host system”. [9]

The idea, furthermore, that bacteria exist as single viable organisms, which can exist alone without any other life forms, is incorrect. In isolated form, they automatically die off after some time. This never occurred to the scientists, because after a successful “isolation” of a bacterium, a part of it is frozen and can be worked with in the lab decades later. The idea of bacteria being living independent structures which can survive by themselves is a laboratory artefact, a misinterpretation.

Thus, the claim that is made on the basis of that myth, that bacteria are immortal, is therefore untrue. Bacteria are immortal only in symbiosis with a huge number of other bacteria, fungi and probably many more unknown life forms which are difficult to characterise, such as for example the amoeba.

Amoebae, bacteria and fungi form spores as soon as their living environment disappears and re-emerge once the living conditions return. If one compares that with humans, we have the same perspective: without a living environment, from and with which we live, nothing can exist.

However, these discoveries go much deeper. Not only the entire species concept is dissolving, but also the idea and the claim about the alleged existence of dead matter. Observations and conclusions about a living “active matter” (as physicists call it) are dismissed as unscientific vitalism. There is considerable evidence, however, that all those elements which the “dominant opinion” in “science” does not consider as being alive, actually originate and develop from the membrane of water, i.e. the “Ursubstanz” [10] , or primordial source of life. These elements then create the nucleic acids, and around the nucleic acids they create the biological life in the form of amoebae, bacteria, tardigrades and ever-more complex life forms. We have two distinct confirmations on this perspective. One of them can be observed by every person for himself as well as for other people, i.e. that biological life in the form of our body is actually a materialisation of the elements of an existing conscience. We can name them and we know the exact way in which our organs and psyche interact and influence each other through information. It is known, for instance, that a single word can either do damage or solve a conflict. We can verify all these aspects because they are predictable. Thus, the three criteria of scientific research are fulfilled. [11] This is important, because these findings and the knowledge on how they relate to each other free us from fear as well as from the fear-inducing “good versus evil” mentality and what is even more important: the sick-making behavioural patterns derived from it. These revealing scientific discoveries clarify as well the processes of disease, healing, the “healing crisis”, the suspended healing and the phenomenon of subsequent diseases (aka the old concept of “contagion”). Virus, it’s time to go. [12]

The nightmare of materialistic science, then, seems to come true: even apparently dead matter is alive, it is vital. The vitalism, according to which there is a life force in all things, was contested by the Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurius and the followers of their doctrine. Their main argument was that they wanted to castigate any abuse of faith and prevent its repetition. Their intention was apparently good. However, they ignored that by denying the concepts of conscience and spirit and all the levels of manifestation of these forces, they turned involuntarily into destroyers of life and enemies of the people.

These “good versus evil” interpretations are constantly increasing due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences, which were discovered and described by Silvio Gesell [13] (in general) and Ivan Illich [14] (in medicine), are constantly increasing [15] due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences. The consequences of our money system’s inherent compulsion to even more growth, to permanent growth even, which generates cyclical catastrophes and brings about ever more powerful winners and simultaneously a constantly increasing impoverishment and suffering, is interpreted by all the people involved as proof for an independent principle of evil, because these people don’t know the mathematically determined, tenacious inherent mechanisms of the money system. It appears that the people on the winning side, who are ethically correct, regard the mathematically obligatory generated profit as evidence of their godliness and exceptionality. This was not just the basis for Manichaeism (Mani was the Babylonian founder of this religion, whose followers are called Manichaens), but has always been the driving force of the dangerous aspects and effects of industrialisation, as Max Weber and others discovered.

The Resuscitation of Virology by Nobel Prize Winner John Franklin Enders

We have explained in several articles in our magazine “WissenschafftPlus” starting with the year 2014 the greater framework of the misguided development of biology and medicine, the untenable dogma of the so-called cell theory, which claimed that the body develops from cells and not from tissues. The cell theory of life, the “cellular pathology”, invented by Rudolf Virchow in 1858, which to date is the exclusive basis for biology and medicine, claims that all disease (as well as all life) originates from a single cell, which is somehow hijacked by a virus, starts to deteriorate and then propagates that virus. Two crucial aspects served as precondition and basis for the current global acceptance of cellular pathology, from which the infectious theory, the genetic, immune and cancer theories have developed, was only possible because of two crucial aspects.

a. The cell theory was only implemented because Rudolf Virchow suppressed crucial discoveries about tissues. The findings and insights with respect to the structure, function and central importance of tissues in the creation and development of life, which were already known in 1858, comprehensively refute the cell theory and the subsequently derived genetic, immune and cancer theories. [16]

b. The infection theories were only established as a global dogma through the concrete politics and eugenics of the Third Reich. Before 1933, scientists dared to contradict this theory; after 1933, these critical scientists were silenced. [17]

In order to work with “viruses” and carry out so-called infectious experiments, before the concept of virology was abandoned in 1952, the “virologists” were forced to dissolve and filtrate “diseased” and putrescent tissue. The concentrated filtrate, so they believed, contained a pathogen, a toxin, which they thought would be constantly produced by the infected cells. Until 1952, a “virus” was defined as a pathogenic poison in the form of a protein, which as an enzyme caused damage in an unknown manner, would cause disease and be transmissible. After 1953, the year in which the alleged DNA in the form an alleged alpha helix was publicly announced, the idea of a virus became a malignant genotype wrapped in proteins. Thus, a paradigm shift took place between 1952 to 1954 regarding the image of a virus.

“Infectious experiments” with animals were carried out with the filtrated fluids from putrescent organisms or from fluids allegedly containing the proteins/enzymes which were supposed to represent the virus. The results were meant to prove that a virus was present and would cause the illness ascribed to it. However, what is never mentioned publicly is that the symptoms allegedly caused in human beings by a virus could never be replicated in animal experiments, instead there were always only “similar” symptoms, which they then claimed to be identical with the disease in humans. However, none of this has ever been proven scientifically.

To date, all “infectious experiments” are missing the control experiments, i.e. the proof that the symptoms are not caused by the “treatment” of the genetic material in the so-called “infectious” experiment. In order to exclude that it was not the fluids of diseased tissue that caused the symptoms, one would have had to do an identical experiment, only with other fluids or with sterilised fluids. However, that has never happened. Extremely cruel animal experiments are carried out to date – for example in order to prove the transmissibility of measles; during these experiments, monkeys are tied up and immobilised in a vacuum chamber with a tube in their nose, and then scientists insert the allegedly infected fluids through that tube into their trachea and lungs. The exact same damage would be caused by sterile saline solution, sterilised blood, pus or saliva. The induced symptoms, which are only “similar” to those ascribed to measles, are then claimed to be measles.

Since the allegedly infected fluids are pressed through a filter which allegedly filters out bacteria and they are slightly heated, the scientists claim that the suffering and death of the animals in those experiments cannot be caused by bacteria, but rather by smaller “pathogens”, the viruses. The concerned scientists conveniently ignored the fact already acknowledged at that time that there are there are much more unknown bacteria than known ones, that many bacteria are heat resistant and that they form spores which cannot be filtrated. It is important to mention here that there is no evidence whatsoever that bacteria cause any disease either.

They are of course often present in the disease process, like the firemen putting out the fire. Bacteria do not cause disease, but rather they participate in biological meaningful reparation processes. As with viruses, the only so-called evidence for the apparently negative role of bacteria are the horrific animal experiments which are completely meaningless, since all control experiments are missing.

Enders and Polio

Up to the year 1949, the “virologists” cultivated their suspected “viruses” (proteins) by placing a piece of putrescent genetic material, which had been taken from a tissue allegedly infected by a virus, on a slice of “healthy” tissue of the same type. The visible intensification of the putrefaction process, which was transmitted from the “sick” tissue to the “healthy” tissue, was misinterpreted as proliferation and spreading of the virus, of the pathogenic poison. Due to control experiments with healthy tissue carried out for the first time in 1951, the virologists discovered that what they saw were quite normal processes of tissue decay and not a virus that would only be present in “sick” tissue.

Enter John Franklin Enders. In 1949, he “discovered” by chance – because he had no fresh “healthy” nerve tissue available – that other types of tissue started to decompose as well if a piece of brain from a person who died of polio was placed on it. Previously, the virologists had believed that every virus could only propagate in the organic material that it would also damage. For the alleged discovery that “viruses” propagate in other tissues as well, which they don’t damage in live humans, Enders and the other involved academics were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine on the 10th of June 1954.

From then on, the alleged “polio virus” was propagated by mixing human foetal skin tissue and muscle with brain substance from people who had died of “polio”, the mixture of which then collectively decayed. The filtrate from this mixture, then, was considered to contain a “virus”. The famous Jonas Salk adopted this exact idea without naming the inventor. Salk used the filtrate of decayed human foetal tissue as a polio vaccine, the New York Times stated that the vaccine worked and would be safe, and Salk generated millions of dollars with the polio vaccine, without sharing anything with the real inventor of the idea of using decomposing human foetuses. [18]

For these reasons, Enders worked hard to develop another technique, for which he could take the credit from the very beginning.

He chose the second most lucrative area of the germ theory of disease, namely that of the symptoms called measles. Enders used the same ideas and methods from bacteriology (in which he had graduated) and believed that the phages were the viruses of bacteria.

Analogous to this technique of demonstrating how phages allegedly destroy bacteria on a Petri dish, he developed a tissue streak on which allegedly infected fluid was placed.

Analogous to the dying off of the bacteria, the dying off of the tissue streak was claimed to be at the same time the presence of the suspected virus, the proof for its existence, its isolation and its multiplication. This precise protocol is still applied to date in the case of measles and, slightly modified, as “evidence” of all pathogenic viruses. [19] The mixture of dying or dead cells/tissues is now called a “live vaccine”.

If single particles of dead tissue or synthethically produced molecules are used in vaccines, the experts call it “killed vaccine” or “inactivated vaccine”.

Enders blamed the strikingly high numbers of deaths and injuries that the Salk polio vaccine caused in the population on the contamination of the vaccine with unknown human viruses, which is why he worked in his lab with tissues from monkey kidneys and foetal serum from horses and unborn calves.

There are four striking and crucial differences between the evidence of the existing (bacterio)phages and Enders’ alleged evidence of the hypothetic “viruses” in humans and animals. These differences clarify Enders’ wrong assumptions, since he completely forgot his earlier clearly expressed doubts once he had received the Nobel prize, and so he led all of his colleagues and consequently the entire world (see the Corona panic) down the wrong path.... Or: exactly the same thing as is happening now, with the Corona-panic The entire world, except a pretty but stubborn schwabian village near lake Constanz (where Dr Lanka lives, note of the translator):

1. The (bacterio)phages have indeed been isolated in the meaning of the word “isolation” with standard methods (density gradient centrifugation). Immediately after the isolation they have been photographed in an electron microscope, their purity is determined and then their components, their proteins and their DNA have been biochemically described all at once, in one single paper.

2. With respect to all “viruses” of humans, animals or plants, however, no virus was ever isolated, photographed in an isolated form and its components were never biochemically characterised all at once, from the “isolate”. In reality, there was a consensus process, taking place over quite a number of years, in which single particles of dead cells were theoretically ascribed to a totally virtual virus model. The phages served as a model for this entire interpretation process, as we can see clearly from the first drawings of a “virus”.

3. The tissue and cells used for the “proof and propagation” of “viruses” are prepared in a very special manner before the act of the alleged “infection”. 80% of their nutrients is withdrawn, so that they can become “hungry” and better absorb the “viruses”. They are treated with antibiotics in order to exclude the possibility that bacteria, which are present always and everywhere in all tissues and serums, may cause the expected death of the cells. It was acknowledged only in 1972 by biochemistry experts that those antibiotics were damaging and killing the cells by themselves, a fact that the virologists had previously ignored. “Starvation” and “poisoning” is what kills the cells, but this was and still is misinterpreted as the presence, isolation, effect and propagation of the hypothetical viruses.

4. The control experiments that are crucial and required in science have to date not been carried out with respect to viruses; they could exclude the possibility that instead of a virus just typical cell particles were misinterpreted as a virus. The control experiments regarding the isolation, biochemical description and electron micrographs of the phages, however, were all carried out.

Thus, Enders’ speculations dated 1 June 1954 20 about the possible proof of an “agent” which could “possibly” play a role in measles became an apparently “scientific” fact and the exclusive basis for the entire new genetic virology after 1952, all because of his Nobel prize for the “human foetus/polio virus vaccine” in December 1954. A few months after having received his Nobel prize, Enders forgot or suppressed the discrepancies and doubts that he had mentioned himself in his 1954 paper. Still suffering due to the plagiarism committed by Jonas Salk, who had stolen his idea for the polio vaccine, Enders stated that all future developments of a measles vaccine would have to be based on his (Enders’) technique.

Enders killed his tissue cultures himself unintentionally through the treatment with antibiotics (without negative control experiments – and this is a crucial aspect in the context of mandatory measles vaccination). Ever since Enders experimented with a smear taken from a young boy named David Edmonston who was supposedly ill from measles, the first model of a measles “virus” (hypothetically put together from particles of dead tissue) has been called the “Edmonston strain”. The measles vaccine, as a toxic sum of all those decayed pieces of tissue, is also claimed to contain the “Edmonston strain”. A part of that mixture containing dead monkey tissue and foetal bovine serum is being constantly frozen and then used regularly to “inoculate” other dying tissue/cells in order to create “measles viruses” and “live vaccines”.

The importance of winning the measles virus trial

The crucial expert opinions, protocols and rulings of the measles virus trial (2012–2017) that I will refer to in the following are freely available on the internet www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog. Further expert opinions and refutations of the claims regarding the measles virus, which the Court did not take into account, are published in the editions of the WissenschafftPlus magazine from 2014 to 2017.

The background of the measles virus trial, which began in 2011, was to prevent the planned compulsory measles vaccinations. A former Federal Justice minister had called me and asked for scientific data to help stop the introduction of mandatory vaccination. A leading senior state prosecutor gave us the idea to offer a prize for the proof of the “measles virus” and, in the subsequent civil trial, to legally establish that there is no scientific evidence for the claims that the measles virus exists and that vaccines were safe and effective. Our plan was entirely successful. This is easily understandable if one knows why the paper by John Franklin Enders et al. published on the 1st of June 1954, became the only and exclusive basis of the entire new genetic virology of the “live virus” vaccine production after the old virology had died a natural death in 1951–1952.

Knowing that the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), contrary to its legal duty, had not published a single paper on the alleged existence of the measles virus, I offered a €100,000 prize for a scientific paper from the RKI containing the scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus.

A young doctor from Saarland presented me with six papers but none from the RKI; the papers were: the one from Enders published the 1st of June 1954 and five others, based exclusively on Enders’ original paper, one of them being the most comprehensive review of other papers on the measles virus. In this “review” we can find a description of the laborious consensus-building process which lasted for decades and included dilemmas such as which parts of the dead tissue are to be ascribed to the measles virus model and also how the measles virus model had to be constantly modified.

I replied to the young doctor (who urgently recommended me to waive the (indeed) costly “legal dispute” and to immediately pay him the prize money) that in none of the six publications was there any identifiable viral structure, but rather easily recognisable typical cellular particles and structures.

Thereupon he filed a suit with the Ravensburg Local Court, this however, without submitting the six publications to the court. The Ravensburg Court decided against me, even though the six publications never appeared in the legal files.

Apart from that, the verdict of the Ravenburg Local Court occurred under more than unusual circumstances. [21]

The plaintiff admitted to the judge during the appeal at the Stuttgart Higher Court that he himself had never read the six publications. So he was planning to shut me down and thus silence the central refutation of the vaccination through the “tedious legal battle”. He may have been a victim of the false belief in viruses himself, because he probably trusted his colleagues, which is normal, but who themselves had no idea about the erroneous development in medicine since 1858 and did not do any historical research with respect to their false beliefs, this becoming simultaneously culprits and perpetrators and victims of their fatal belief in the germ theories and their trust in vaccinations.

It is plausible that the plaintiff did not read the six publications he presented to me, but not to the court. At least it is clear that he didn’t look for them himself, because they are the only publications in the entire field of about 30,000 technical articles about “measles” in which a reference to the accepted existence of the measles virus is made. However, all the tons of other papers, which nobody can ever finish reading, assume “a priori” the existence of the measles virus and always refer to citations of citations, which are finally and exclusively based on the alleged “evidence” supplied by Enders on the 1st of June 1954.

The Ravensburg Local Court decided in 2014 to accept the lawsuit of Dr Bardens and concluded that the prize money was to be paid out even without any publication from the RKI. Apart from that, the Ravensburg Local Court decided that it wouldn’t be necessary for the scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus to be published in one single paper, but rather that the overall 3,366 papers (the sum of all the papers cited in the six submitted publications) from 1954 to 2007 was to be accepted as proof.

The legally appointed expert Professor Podbielski from Rostock argued accordingly (or the local court adjusted its opening decision to the expert opinion): “I have to expressly clarify that one cannot provide evidence in the classical sense in biology as one can in mathematics or physics. In biology one can only gather clues, which at some point in time in their entirety attain probative value.“ [22]

Based on this extremely unscientific claim arising from Podbielski’s lack of arguments and his bias due to the discrepancies between reality and the beliefs he had grown so fond of, something happened which behavioural scientists call “displacement”. Podbielski invented a desperate excuse, namely that biology and the medicine based thereon as well as vaccinations are per se unscientific and without evidence, without proof: In his opinion, only a collection of clues could “some day” and “somehow” (practically) attain probative value. A more explicit admission of the existent unscientific nature of current biology and medicine has never been expressed with such clarity.

What is most important at present is to make legal use of all this evidence for the unscientific nature of the infection theory and the vaccination policies, which are already impacting our constitutional rights. We need to make the mandatory measles vaccination, voted upon and implemented in Germany as of 1 March 2020, simply disappear.

Further information about this will be published in our newsletter.

Continuation of this article:

1. The duty of science to carry out control experiments. The statements given to protocol by Professor Podbielski during the measles virus trial that all the crucial publications about the existence of the measles virus and all subsequent publications, contrary to his expert written opinion, do not contain a single control experiment. [23]

2. The crucial importance of the legal judgment from the Stuttgart Upper State Court from 16/02/2016, Article 12 U 63/15 for virology and vaccination policies. [24]

3. Reports and advice on what has already been done in order to reverse the mandatory measles vaccination law;

will follow in the next WissenschafftPlus edition 2/2020.

List of references:

1. The Nobel Prize is for many reasons the most embarrassing thing that can happen to a scientist and to society: 1. All recognition is based on the respective “dominant opinion” of the academic orthodoxy and its claim to exclusiveness. 2. All such recognitions have proved to be wrong after a short period ranging from several years to several decades. Thus, the Nobel Prize impedes the advancement of scientific knowledge by turning mere assertions into dogmas. 3. A small number of extremely elitist people having left the realm of reality, are ultimately in charge of deciding what is science and what is not science. These people predefine “scientific” fashions and methods and suppress any knowledge that contradicts their views. The practice of “Peer-Review”, that is, the evaluation of scientific papers prior to their publication, prevents that any undesired piece of knowledge refuting their ideas and dogmas ends up being published. For further information read the report about the Nobel Prize in the magazine WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2017. The report includes the picture of a sculpture showing the essence of this issue and speaking louder than any words.

2. The members of the Libertas&Sanitas association, in their effort to stop mandatory vaccination, have published comprehensive documentation about the knowledge available to the decision-makers in the health authorities. In that way it has been proved that there is no data available in Germany that leads to the conclusion that vaccines are safe and that vaccination only entails a small risk. Furthermore: In Germany there is no collection of data that helps verify if, following the WHO definitons, there was a propagation or epidemic of measles or a stop to that propagation through vaccines for that matter. See: www.libertas-sanitas.de. I also recommend the remarkable video “Verstand&Logik im Gespräch mit Priorix (Masern-Mumps-Röteln-Lebendimpfstoff) [2020]” (English: “ Mind&Logic in conversation with Priorix (measles – mumps – rubella – attenuated vaccine) [2020]”).

3. Those fluent in English will realize by reading the following publication that the construction of a complete viral genome is just something purely theoretical: Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany“, to be found here: https:// edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/1876. The Robert Koch Institute was involved in this research. Prof. Mankertz, co-author of the publication and head of the National Reference Institute for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, claimed upon request that control experiments were carried out for this study in order to rule out that typical cell components were misinterpreted as viral particles. She refused however to release the documentation concerning these control experiments. During the appeal Prof. Mankertz replied that she did not have the control experiments available, but she was sure that her colleagues in Munich should have carried out and documented such experiments. I personally wrote to all authors and to their laboratory managers asking for the control experiments, which are an obligation since 1998. No one answered. The rectors of the contacted research institutes did not answer my questions either and so the appeal procedure came to nothing.

4. Publication of 22.1.2020: Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human.

Authors: Wei Ji, Wei Wang, Xiaofang Zhao, Junjie Zai, Xingguang Li. To be found in this link: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25682

5. For further information read the pages 33-36 of the article „Eine neue Sichtweise auf das Leben - Teil II.“ (English: “A new perspective on life – Part II”), WissenschafftPlus magazine Nr. 2/2019. In this article it is explained how almost any form of academic and state financed science will automatically follow an erroneous trend. The legal historian and sociologist Eugen Rosenstock already showed this in 1956, specifically naming the then already refuted theory of infection and cancer medicine.

6. Karlheinz Lüdtke: Zur Geschichte der frühen Virus-forschung. Wie sich mit technischen Fortschritten bei der Untersuchung „filtrierbarer“ infektiöser Agenzien das Verständnis der Virusnatur entwickelt hatte. (English: On the history of early virus research. How technical progress in the investigation of “filterable” infectious agents developed the understanding of the nature of viruses). Reprint Nr. 125 (1999) of the “Max-Planck-Instituts für Wissenschaftsgeschichte” (Max-Planck-Institute for the history of science), 89 pages.

7. On the refutation of all previous ideas about a so-called genetic material as building and function plan of life, you can refer to my articles in the WissenchafftPlus magazine. The index for all published editions since 2003 is available on the internet. Particularly worth reading is the article “Erbgut in Auflösung”, published in “DIE ZEIT” on 12.6.2008 (English: Genome in dissolution) that is available on the internet for free. This article summarizes that the “genome” is constantly changing, therefore it cannot carry out the things that scientists ascribe to genomes and also that its changes are misinterpreted as disease genes.

8. A good insight into the work and system of knowledge of Prof. Günter Enderlein can be found in the doctoral tesis written by Dr. Elke Krämer „Leben und Werk von Prof. Dr. phil. Günther Enderlein (1872- 1968)“ (English: Life and work of Prof. Dr. phil. Günther Enderlein (1872- 1968), published as a book in 2012 by Reichl Verlag in St. Goar.

9. Riesenviren und die Entstehung des Lebens (English: Giant viruses and the origin of life). WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2014.

10. Wasser begreifen, Leben erkennen. PI-Wasser: Mehr als nur energetisiertes H2O. (English: Understanding water, perceiving life. Pi-water: More than just energized H2O), WissenschafftPlus Nr. 6/2018. This contribution can be found on our webpage www.wissenschafftplus.de under “important texts”.

11. See the introduction to a new perspective on life in issues Nr. 1, 2 and 3 /2019 of WissenschafftPlus.

12. Comprehensive presentation of the measles virus trial: go Virus go. Der Bundesgerichtshof lässt den Glauben an Viren untergehen (English: go virus go. The Federal Court lets the belief in viruses go down). WissenschafftPlus Nr. 2/2017. Also free on the internet: https://wissenschafftplus.de .

13. As an introduction to the findings and solution proposals of Silvio Gesell to escape from the autonomous mechanisms of the monetary system, you can read the book „Wer hat Angst vor Silvio Gesell “ (English: Who fears Silvio Gesell) written by Hermann Benjes (292 pages).

14. Ivan Illich. Die Nemesis der Medizin: Die Kritik der Medikalisierung des Lebens. (English: Ivan Illich. The nemesis of medicine: criticism on the medicalization of life) 319 pages, 1976 and 1995.

15. In his book „Can Medicine be cured? The corruption of a profession “, the author Seamus O‘Mahony, a famous Irish gastroenterologist, distorts the writings of Ivan Illich. Illich states that his diagnosis on the perversion of medicine has as its “only” cause the internal dynamics resulting from the profit-making compulsion, being the pharmaceutical industry one more player in that system. O‘Mahony on the other hand blames the pharmaceutical industry for the corruption of the medical professions and concludes that medicine cannot be cured. According to him, medicine on its own would not be able to get rid of that perversion and only a humanitarian catastrophe or a war would make a reset possible. In this way he overlooks the misconception that originated in 1858 due to Virchow: The incorrect and, even at that time, baseless cellular pathology theory that was the direct precursor of the, later developed but equally wrong and dangerous, theories about infection, the immune system, genes and cancer. On page 262 of his book, the author acknowledges that there was another school of medicine that understood health as a result of life being in harmony with itself and with its environment but that this school had no chance. He was referring to the “psychosomatic” of Prof. Claus Bahne Bahnson and his international colleagues. They did not make much progress though, stuck as they were in the false biochemistry of the cell theory. Only Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer managed to develop a scientific, comprehensive and individualized psychosomatic theory.

16. Rudolf Virchow, ein Stratege der Macht. Teil 1 und Teil 2. (English: Rudolf Virchow, a strategist of power. Part 1 and part 2) Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus Nr. 5/2015 and Nr. 6/2015 and Entwicklung von Medizin und Menschheit. (English: Development of medicine and mankind) Stefan Lanka. WissenschafftPlus Nr. 6/2015.

17. Annette Hinz-Wessels. Das Robert Koch-Institut im Nationalsozialismus (English: The Robert Koch Institute under National Socialism). Kulturverlag Kadmos, 192 pages, 2012. The book points out that only after the German scientists opposing and refuting the theory of infection were killed, deported or imprisoned, did the theory of infection turn into a mainstream globally accepted theory.

18. See the English version of the Wikipedia article about John Franklin Enders.

19. The First Measles Virus. Jeffrey P. Baker. Veröffentlicht im Magazin Pediatrics, September 2011, 128 (3) 435-437; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1430

20. Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles. John F. Enders and Thomas C. Peebles. Im Magazin „Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine“, Vol. 86, Issue 2 vom 1.6.1954, Seite 277-286. https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-86-21073

21. See 12.

22. Protocol of the trial of 12.3.2015 before the Ravensburg Local Court, page 7 lower section, to be found here http://lrbw.juris.de . See www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog/de

23. Protocol of the trial of 12.3.2015 before the Ravensburg Local Court, page 7 upper section. See www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog/de

24. To be found here http://lrbw.juris.de or here www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog/de