THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
heniek1812
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:53 am

Nice work Seneca !!!
Seneca wrote:
Wed Mar 25, 2020 10:43 am
For the second paper submitted for the prize Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85 I only found the abstract.

Were there any controls?

Even if we would suppose all these questions were properly addressed in the paper, just one case is not enough to prove anything. As they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this doesn't come close. I am not arguing for more animal testing, they should be more creative. If I was paid well enough and I would have enough information about what they would inject, I wouldn't mind volunteering for a double blind study.

So the score is now Stefan Lanka 5, David Bardens 0 with 1 more to go.
Cherry-picking I suspect was practiced so as to get the "expected" results. Lack of any of those other symptoms is also a red flag that the paper is neither here nor there.

I agree, Dr. Lanka is winning.

One would think that after so many years more solid research would be available. :wacko:

Seneca
Member
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm

To be clear: I wasn't suggesting that the authors of the last study were cherry picking. From what I read they where being quite honest by not calling it measles. It was Stefan Lanka who I thought was cherry picking. From that last article he only used the information that helped him to prove his case. But I was probably too harsh, he wasn't claiming to give a complete rebuttal of the study as I was doing.

Now to conclude here is the third "paper" that was submitted. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

Unlike the other 5, this is not a scientific paper, it is actually a chapter from a book called "Measles Viruses". I can only read the abstract but there is nothing in there that can prove the existence of the measles virus.

So the final score is 6-0 for Stefan Lanka. Since the 6 submitted articles did not contain any proof for the existence of the measles virus the court experts lied or were mistaken when they claimed that "the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens".

Now someone who still wants to believe in viruses could say: "David Bardens" was obviously a moron, since he didn't even know the difference between a book and a scientific publication, was to stupid to understand the conditions of the contest, wasted the courts time when he had already lost. He messed up and didn't submit the right publications. "

If that is the case why didn't Lanka just win the first time? I suspect there just isn't such a publication. If you happen to find it, you can tell us about it. You won't get 100.000 €, but you will do humanity a great service.

heniek1812
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:26 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by heniek1812 » Thu Mar 26, 2020 1:57 pm

Seneca wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 12:37 pm
To be clear: I wasn't suggesting that the authors of the last study were cherry picking. From what I read they where being quite honest by not calling it measles. It was Stefan Lanka who I thought was cherry picking. From that last article he only used the information that helped him to prove his case. But I was probably too harsh, he wasn't claiming to give a complete rebuttal of the study as I was doing.

Now to conclude here is the third "paper" that was submitted. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

Unlike the other 5, this is not a scientific paper, it is actually a chapter from a book called "Measles Viruses". I can only read the abstract but there is nothing in there that can prove the existence of the measles virus.

So the final score is 6-0 for Stefan Lanka. Since the 6 submitted articles did not contain any proof for the existence of the measles virus the court experts lied or were mistaken when they claimed that "the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens".

Now someone who still wants to believe in viruses could say: "David Bardens" was obviously a moron, since he didn't even know the difference between a book and a scientific publication, was to stupid to understand the conditions of the contest, wasted the courts time when he had already lost. He messed up and didn't submit the right publications. "

If that is the case why didn't Lanka just win the first time? I suspect there just isn't such a publication. If you happen to find it, you can tell us about it. You won't get 100.000 €, but you will do humanity a great service.
You have done Humanity a service explaining what was happening in this case which is invaluable as someone not educated in this area would have very hard time trying to make sense of it all.

Nice job Seneca. :)

Post Reply