THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

[simonshack]

*


THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA




Dear forum readers and contributors,

As I find myself "imprisoned in Italy under martial law" due to the current Coronavirus/COVID-19 mass hysteria, I have used the extra time enabled by this forced and prolonged house arrest (imposed on the entire Italian populace) to dig a little deeper into the fields of medicine and biology - or more specifically - into the historical "blunders" of the same. So far, I think that our efforts on this ten-year-old research forum have amply demonstrated that virtually every field of science on this planet has been arrogated, commandeered, corrupted and distorted by the "Nutwork" clowns (a.k.a. the "Powers that be") for their nefarious agendas of mass control.

Medicine and biology are, of course, no exceptions to this ruthless rule - and I trust everyone is fully aware of this fact. What I find interesting however, is how little most people know about the foul machinations concocted and perpetrated throughout the centuries by the Nutwork's psychopaths - what with their use of pseudoscientific "medical advances" to inflict psychological terror and distress (and even direct / or undirect mass murder) onto the unsuspecting passengers of this planet. Accordingly, the Nutwork has been virulently (pun intended) promoting to universal fame a long series of fraudsters (e.g. Pasteur, Koch, Salk, Gallo - to name but a few) who have thus been elevated via pure propaganda-power to the status of "untouchable science icons". Anyone who dares question these "heavy-weights of healing" is, of course, quickly derided and dismissed (in academic circles and by the general, gullible public) as a "crank" - unworthy of any credibility whatsoever. I believe the time has come to pay more attention to what those "dissenters" of mainstream medicine & biology have to say. I encourage everyone to help me out in the search of such dissenters - as they are (naturally) pretty hard to come by - much like needles in a haystack!

NOTE: This thread should be exclusively (or as much as possible) and specifically dedicated to scientific discussions related to the entity known as a "VIRUS", that is to say: its historical background and purported means of discovery, the academically-accepted notions of its biological nature, the theories surrounding its alleged faculties of aerobic transmission - and all the way to the extant evidence in support of (or in conflict with) its very existence.


**************************************************************************************************************************

As my first contribution to this thread, I would like to introduce you to the work of an extremely knowledgeable and eloquent German gentleman, Dr. Stefan Lanka.

Dr. Stefan Lanka

In fact, I will go as far as issuing a mandatory requirement to anyone wishing to contribute to this thread to set aside 42 minutes of their lives to watch Dr. Lanka's superbly articulate presentation of his findings concerning the so-called Infection Theory. You won't regret it, I promise you. This soft-spoken biologist/virologist will lead you through an absolutely fascinating "holistic" journey into the scientific and historical aspects surrounding the origins of the "VIRUS" idea :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cnlynJZLtM



Here's my personal favourite quote from the above video, as it neatly puts into perspective the current situation - what with the global "Coronavirus" hoax achieving what the combined military armed forces of this planet could never dream to achieve: the total paralysis of the world's population, without firing a single shot - AND WITH THE EXTRA BONUS OF A HAPPY AND SUBMISSIVE COMPLIANCE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC - "SO AS TO DEFEAT THE DEADLY (yet invisible) VIRUS" !


May reason ultimately prevail.

[rusty]

Amazing coincidence, Simon, that I just mentioned Dr. Lanka in the Corona thread! I repost the link to his article here: Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.

He just released an updated version of this article, with some additional references to the Corona Circus, however it is only available in German and in print so far, not online

[patrix]

Thank you dear Simon for finding this nugget. What a brilliant guy. I've been expressing thoughts along these lines and this gentleman perfectly frames the evidence and puts it into context.

My favorite part:

17:00 But how did it happen, that suddenly Robert Koch was celebrated as the discoverer of the transmissibility of diseases? That is the question.

17:03 The question is easily answered. Robert Koch deserved reputation for having managed to make photography adaptable to visual microscopy and to make photographs of bacteria. Photography itself had been rediscovered in Europa in 1885. This brought him much reputation deservedly. Photography was considered to be sacred, no one could imagine that a negative could be retouched, that double exposures could be used, that it could be manipulated. It was deemed as inherently scientific and objective. They simply made claims along with photography, and this acted in a very hypnotic way, much like television today, so people just accepted these claims.
....
Edit: As for understanding how microbiology really works (although this may be outside the subject of this thread) I recommend investigating the work of Antoine Béchamp and Gaston Neassens who independently found the smallest component of organic life. Bechamp called them microzymas and Naessens dubbed them somatides and invented a revolutionary way of studying them.

https://youtu.be/KGJW94ciq4c

[simonshack]

Edit: As for understanding how microbiology really works (although this may be outside the subject of this thread) I recommend investigating the work of Antoine Béchamp and Gaston Naessens who independently found the smallest component of organic life. Bechamp called them microzymas and Naessens dubbed them somatides and invented a revolutionary way of studying them.

Dear Patrix,

The work of Antoine Béchamp and Gaston Naessens is most certainly relevant to this thread. Please feel free to post reading recommendations on these subject matters - especially concerning the die-hard myths surrounding viruses / bacteria and "established biology science" in general. For instance, I believe that very few people are aware of the now ascertained fact that Louis Pasteur was a plagiarist (who simply stole Béchamp's initial / seminal discoveries) as well as a fraudster.

I have recently bumped into the work of David Crowe.

Here's a paper he wrote back in 2014:

THE INFECTIOUS MYTH - Why I Think Viruses Might Not Exist : http://theinfectiousmyth.com/viruses.php

And here's a quite recent paper of his (March 6, 2020) :

Does the 2019 Coronavirus Exist? http://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploa ... sPanic.pdf

[Seneca]

That is great info! Here is some more info from Dr. Stefan Lanka in which he exposes the creation of the "photos" of different viruses: http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

In another forum topic the legal victory of Stefan Lanka concerning the proof of the measles virus was already mentioned.

Here is a link to a page with a short summary : https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/virus-trial.html

[heniek1812]

That is great info! Here is some more info from Dr. Stefan Lanka in which he exposes the creation of the "photos" of different viruses: http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

In another forum topic the legal victory of Stefan Lanka concerning the proof of the measles virus was already mentioned.

Here is a link to a page with a short summary : https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/virus-trial.html

Senaca, quick question. Someone I mention the Lanka Case to told me that the conditions that Dr. Lanka stipulated were impossible to satisfy ? Correctly if I'm wrong. He wanted to have the diameter of the virus given as well as a photo of it. Is that the gist of his requirement ?

The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though.

Is that in the decision ????

[rusty]

Senaca, quick question. Someone I mention the Lanka Case to told me that the conditions that Dr. Lanka stipulated were impossible to satisfy ? Correctly if I'm wrong. He wanted to have the diameter of the virus given as well as a photo of it. Is that the gist of his requirement ?

He used very high standards that he knew have not be fulfilled by any study, that's true. He wanted a paper with REAL isolation of IDENTICAL particles to even begin with. But I totally agree that would be a required step before proceeding, because else you can't tell for sure what precisely is really causing an illness.

On the other hand, there have been epidemiological studies which show that contact with sick persons of certain symptoms increases the risk of getting the same disease (say chickenpox, measles, ..), at least in some cases and to some degree. Dr. Lanka does not really address this, as well as the question about the correlation in the serology between those cases of "transmission", as well as on the interpretation of any correlation that exists between certain symptoms and specific laboratory tests. I totally know that correlation is not proof of causation and that most of these correlations are totally unspecific or "normal", since you'd find more particles of any kind in persons with diseased tissue, but some of these correlations cannot just be explained away and keep the belief of a "virus" alive. My personal hunch is, that this sort of "transmission" of diseases lies on a different, invisible level. But this does not exclude the possibility that matter excreted by sick patients may also trigger diseases. Think about homeopathy, which is violently attacked because no one understands how it works, but some people are very sure it does work at least sometimes.

The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though.

Is that in the decision ????

No, they simply decided that the evidence required by Dr. Lanka does not exist. But the "expert" who was included in the trial argued, that the existing studies, especially the one by Enders (1951/52), which is at the root of the issue (and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize), somehow prove that the virus exists anyway. In his final summing up he stated that "...proof as we have it in mathematics or physics simply cannot be demonstrated in biology. In biology you can only collect indications, which, taken together, eventually gain probative force" (roughly translated by myself)

[heniek1812]

Senaca, quick question. Someone I mention the Lanka Case to told me that the conditions that Dr. Lanka stipulated were impossible to satisfy ? Correctly if I'm wrong. He wanted to have the diameter of the virus given as well as a photo of it. Is that the gist of his requirement ?

He used very high standards that he knew have not be fulfilled by any study, that's true. He wanted a paper with REAL isolation of IDENTICAL particles to even begin with. But I totally agree that would be a required step before proceeding, because else you can't tell for sure what precisely is really causing an illness.

On the other hand, there have been epidemiological studies which show that contact with sick persons of certain symptoms increases the risk of getting the same disease (say chickenpox, measles, ..), at least in some cases and to some degree. Dr. Lanka does not really address this, as well as the question about the correlation in the serology between those cases of "transmission", as well as on the interpretation of any correlation that exists between certain symptoms and specific laboratory tests. I totally know that correlation is not proof of causation and that most of these correlations are totally unspecific or "normal", since you'd find more particles of any kind in persons with diseased tissue, but some of these correlations cannot just be explained away and keep the belief of a "virus" alive. My personal hunch is, that this sort of "transmission" of diseases lies on a different, invisible level. But this does not exclude the possibility that matter excreted by sick patients may also trigger diseases. Think about homeopathy, which is violently attacked because no one understands how it works, but some people are very sure it does work at least sometimes.

The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though.

Is that in the decision ????

No, they simply decided that the evidence required by Dr. Lanka does not exist. But the "expert" who was included in the trial argued, that the existing studies, especially the one by Enders (1951/52), which is at the root of the issue (and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize), somehow prove that the virus exists anyway. In his final summing up he stated that "...proof as we have it in mathematics or physics simply cannot be demonstrated in biology. In biology you can only collect indications, which, taken together, eventually gain probative force" (roughly translated by myself)

Hi Rusty, thank you for educating me.

I liked your comment on the other thread about the numbers in Germany and Italy. I had no clue things are that cracked up. It's a complete Magical Show.

In reading that specialist in Italy who was quoted in the Italian press I got the distinct impression that he was trying to "telegraph" that those who are dying are in the majority from pre-conditions. Reading translations can be tricky but that's the vibe that I got.

[Seneca]

That is great info! Here is some more info from Dr. Stefan Lanka in which he exposes the creation of the "photos" of different viruses: http://neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

In another forum topic the legal victory of Stefan Lanka concerning the proof of the measles virus was already mentioned.

Here is a link to a page with a short summary : https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/virus-trial.html

Senaca, quick question. Someone I mention the Lanka Case to told me that the conditions that Dr. Lanka stipulated were impossible to satisfy ? Correctly if I'm wrong. He wanted to have the diameter of the virus given as well as a photo of it. Is that the gist of his requirement ?

According to the learningGNM website the exact wording of the conditions is: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.”

This doesn't seem impossible to me.

The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though.

Is that in the decision ????

No that is not a good interpretation of what went on. And it is not called the Federal Supreme Court but the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH). They just confirmed the ruling of the lower court, the OLG. That judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) can be found here and here is the translation. The judges ruled in favor of Stefan Lanka. They argued that according to the expert the 6 papers that where submitted together fulfilled the conditions (proving the existence of the measles virus and measuring it). But Lanka didn't have to pay because because of the wording, it was required that a single paper fulfilled these conditions.

After 3 years I still can't wrap my head around it philosophically. They are saying there was at least one paper in which the diameter of the measles is determined, without proving that the virus exists. How is that possible? If you measure something you have to prove you are measuring that thing and not something else, no? How can you do that without proving that it exists? How can they claim to measure the measles virus without showing that it actually is the measles virus (perhaps by showing it causes measles?). Or from a different angle: if you can measure something, doesn't that prove it exists? If I make a valid measurement of the width of an aura, doesn't that prove it exists? Or some distant star?

I still think Stefan Lanka made his point. If this virus really exists and this was already proven in the '60, it wouldn't have been very difficult to make such a publication using modern equipment, for a 100.000 € reward and all the fame that it would bring.

Also, from https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/virus-trial.html:

According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.

[heniek1812]

I still think Stefan Lanka made his point. If this virus really exists and this was already proven in the '60, it wouldn't have been very difficult to make such a publication using modern equipment, for a 100.000 € reward and all the fame that it would bring.

Hi Seneca, that is strange. For a 100,000 euro he should be able to do the work, write a paper and go to court and win. Strange

[Seneca]

At the very least it shows that Dr. Stefan Lanka has put his money where his mouth is in a most courageous way (I doubt that he had 100.000 € lying around).
This article from him, that ICfreely linked to in the Corona Virus topic, is also very interesting. It is called "DISMANTLING THE VIRUS THEORY - The 'measles virus' as an example". The original article, published June 2015 (after his first court case) was in German, I am not sure the translation is 100% clear.

Just like in the video he explains why people came up with the idea of viruses:

• things that are called bacteriophages (viruses of bacteria) are actually produced by dying bacteria as something like a nutrient for living bacteria.

• unlike bacteriophages, viruses have never been isolated.

• in the case of the "Measles Virus" and other cases, control experiments were not done. Control experiments which are necessary to prove that the cells died of the "virus" and not due to the other experimental conditions.

• Enders, the researcher responsible, got a Nobel Prize for this in 1954.

Edit: I see that Rusty already posted this article at the beginning of the topic.

[heniek1812]

Seneca
Yes indeed. Dr. Lanka put his head on the chopping block and was willing to walk the talk. That takes guts as the sum was not trivial and the courts in Germany (so I think) are serious.

Thanks for your input

[Seneca]

You're welcome heniek1812 and thanks for your input.

So I checked the first of the papers that was submitted for the prize and compared it to what Stefan Lanka wrote in his "DISMANTLING THE VIRUS THEORY" paper. What I don't agree with in Lanka's summary of the paper is that he wrote the cells died while according to the paper they changed to become giant cells.

The rest of what Stefan Lanka wrote about this paper is true:

• The cells were starved for nutrients before the "virus material" was added

• The culture medium contained antibiotics, possibly toxic to the cells

• No mention is made in the text of a control experiment to check if the effects on the cells could be from other causes like starvation or the antibiotics. But strangely in the figures there are 2 photos of kidney and liver cells that are called controls for the other cultures.

Furthermore, I noticed that neither the concentration nor the type of antibiotics was mentioned in the paper (there were already 20 different antibiotics at the time). Without this information the experiments could not be replicated. Besides that, the culture medium contained unknown quantities of both the ph indicator phenol red (an oestrogen mimic that can also be cytotoxic) and Soybean Trypsin Inhibitor, an anti-nutritional factor. Together with the lacking information on controls this seems all pretty stupid for a Noble prize winner. Perhaps, even worse, he had a control experiment and some of the cells ended up changing too so he didn't mention it in the paper.

Nowhere in the paper is proven that things taken from a measles patient can cause measles in another human or animal. So in no way it proves the existence of a measles virus. There is no attempt made to isolate or measure it. So for the prize it was basically useless.

For now the score is: Stefan Lanka 1, David Bardens 0

[Seneca]

Today I read the sixth article submitted for the prize (which was easiest to find). About this paper Stefan Lanka writes it has the same problems as the third and fourth papers:

They did not isolate any virus. For unexplained reasons, they failed to determine and describe the biochemical structure of what they were presenting as a virus in a separate experiment. In the short description of the methods used, one can read that the authors did not apply the standard isolation technique for viruses, i.e. the density gradient centrifugation. They simply centrifuged fragments of dead cells at the bottom of a test tube and then, without describing their biochemical structure, they misinterpreted the cellular debris as viruses. From the way the experiments were performed, one can only conclude that cellular particles were misinterpreted as viruses.

Contrary to what Stefan Lanka claims for the third paper, in this sixth paper they mention the use of sucrose step gradient ultracentrifugation (which I think is a type of density gradient centrifugation). They measured some particles that they referred to as Measles Virus-like particles. Later they called them Measles Virus particles for the following reasons:

• -the particles are taken from cells inoculated with the "Edmonston strain". This supposedly contains viruses that originally came from an 11(!) year old child with Measles, in 1954

• -the particles when viewed under an electron microscope contained a nucleocapsid-like inside or a projection-like structure on the surface. (a nucleocapsid consists of a nucleic acid surrounded by a coat of protein)

• -the particles supposedly were binding to "mouse antiserum against Measles Virus"

• -the particles were "infective"

How this last element was determined is described as follows:

To determine the infectivity of viral particles of different sizes, the culture supernatant of viral infected cells was passed through membrane filters with pore sizes of 0.8, 0.45 and 0.22 μm. Each filtrate was serially diluted and inoculated into Vero cells cultured in a 96-well microplate. After 7 days of culture, the cells in the microplate were fixed and stained with Giemsa solution, and observed under a converted microscope; the cytopathic effect (CPE) was detected.

The description is too vague to be reproducible and controls are lacking. So we don't know what killed the cells. It is not shown that the particles could cause Measles in people or animals which for me would be the necessary proof that they really are Measles viruses.

Furthermore I think the wide range in the measured diameters of the "Measles Virus-like Particles" ranging from 50-1000 nm with the "infective ones" ranging at least from 220-800 nm is inconsistent with conventional biological theory. Because the cells are very similar, we would expect "natural selection pressures" on the attacking Measles virus and the defending cells to select a single virus type that was the most successful in infecting the cells. This virus type would get copied millions of times before less successful viruses could start to replicate so it would greatly outnumber the rest. Since viruses are supposed to consist only of proteins and DNA or RNA of which the size depends only on the genetic code, copies from the virus should have exactly the same size (except in the case of rare mutations). And yet we are made to believe that the variation in size for viruses is much bigger than for most other living beings. A better explanation of the variation in size is that they are all different particles found in normal cells or created by the experiment.

In conclusion, they are measuring diameters but nowhere in the article is there any proof that what they measured was really the Measles Virus or that such a thing exists. So for the prize this article is also worthless.

For now the score is: Stefan Lanka 2, David Bardens 0

[heniek1812]

Today I read the sixth article submitted for the prize (which was easiest to find). About this paper Stefan Lanka writes it has the same problems as the third and fourth papers:
.....
In conclusion, they are measuring diameters but nowhere in the article is there any proof that what they measured was really the Measles Virus or that such a thing exists. So for the prize this article is also worthless.

For now the score is: Stefan Lanka 2, David Bardens 0

Good work Seneca !!!!

I saw the six papers but there is no way in hell that I could catch problems in them. Basic biology is just not enough.
All the Best