Pictures of Isolated Viruses Debunked-Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The Viral Fraud

[Guest guest]

Addresses many so-called viruses, not just HIV

http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

GO TO WEBSITE FOR PHOTOS (or non-photos ) (and Stefan is gorgeous!)

Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The " Viral Fraud "

Pictures of " Isolated Viruses " Debunked

Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist and molecular biologist, is internationally

mostly known as an " AIDS dissident " (and maybe " gentechnology dissident " )

who has been questioning the very existence of " HIV " since 1994. In the

past years, however, he stumbled over a breathtaking fact: Not even ONE of

the (medically relevant) viruses has ever been isolated; there is no proof

of their existence. Actually, Dr. Lanka has already stated three years ago,

in the almost " legendary " Zenger´s interview: " So for a long time I studied

virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to

be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for

me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses

to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses -- as well as other

viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous -- in fact do not exist at

all. " So he was thoroughly reading the literature on those " other viruses "

again, and after he could still not find any paper which would provide the

evidence, he encouraged people not to BELIEVE him but to ask the institutes

and authorities themselves. This has actually taken place, mostly initiated

by mothers. The responses were revealing. In September 2001 the German book

" Impfen - Völkermord im dritten Jahrtausend? " (Vaccination - Genocide in

the third millennium?) by Stefan Lanka and Karl Krafeld was published in

which they state that there is still no proof of any (medically relevant)

virus.

This movement (klein-klein-aktion ~ many little actions/steps) has a German

website: www.klein-klein-aktion.de which I have taken (and translated) all

the following texts from.

For almost one year we have been asking authorities, politicians and

medical institutes after the scientific evidence for the existence of such

viruses that are said to cause disease and therefore require

" immunization " . After almost one year we have not received even one

concrete answer which provides evidence for the existence of those

" vaccination viruses " . The conclusion is inevitable that our children are

still vaccinated on the basis of scientific standards of the 18th and 19th

century. In the 19th century Koch demanded in his generally accepted

postulates evidence of the virus in order to prove infection; at Koch´s

time this evidence couldn´t be achieved directly by visualization and

characterization of the viruses, because adequate technology wasn´t

available at that time. Methods of modern medicine have profoundly changed

over the past 60 years, in particular by the invention of the electron

microscope. And still all these viruses we get immunized against have never

been re-examined using this technology?

Several images and explanations that we were pointed to and that were said

to show resp. describe (characterize) viruses, we showed to Dr. Lanka who

gives his summarizing comments:

[The German original of the following text by Stefan Lanka you can find

here (temporarily not available for technical reasons, Jan 11, 2003)]

All these photos have in common that they, resp. the authors, can´t claim

that they present a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original

publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated.

Such original publications are cited nowhere.

Indeed, in the entire scientific literature there´s not even one

publication, where for " viruses in the medicine " the fulfillment of Koch´s

first postulate is even claimed. That means, that there is no proof that

from humans with certain diseases the viruses - which are held responsible

for these diseases - have been isolated. Nevertheless, this is precisely

what they publicly claim. Now, regarding the photos submitted:

1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the

(art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear

in black and white.

2. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox

(Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already

indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found.

Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical

endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the

intra- and intercellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind - that

are always the same size and same shape (consistency) -, they differ in

size and shape (consistency) and therefore can´t be isolated.

3. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and

ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that

they´re isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated

from humans.

These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2)

resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after

inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the

electron microscope.

4. The " isolated " polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by

suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum.

Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones

of the " viruses " in the cells. Here the information is essential that a

biochemical characterization of those " isolated " viruses, although

" isolation " is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody

even claimed such a characterization.

5. The photo with the hepatitis B " viruses " does not show isolated

structures, but - as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is

the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped

together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, thereby round and also

crystal structures accrue - depending on the condition of the blood sample.

In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud

committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as

they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To

what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have

contributed to this fraud knowlingly or only out of gross negligence, I

don´t know. Everyone who starts a recherche in the medical literature, will

quickly encounter statements and references that Koch´s first postulate

can´t be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben,

1997 [ " a little story of the microbes " ]; editor: Verlag für angewandte

Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could

overlook that, remains a riddle.

Could it be that the term " Contagium " = " Gift " (poison/toxin) = " Virus "

from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell

components which were named " viruses " since the electron microscope was

introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the " disease causing

viruses " have often been described but never been isolated? And then they

were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse

affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the

symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985

following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations?

The copies in the textbooks show only structures within cells and nothing

that looks like isolation and thus homogenous. The biochemical

characterization, which is crucial, lacks completely.

Koch and colleagues, Prof. Rush, Prof. Max von Pettenkofer, Prof.

Virchow have shown, for instance by experiments and by observation of the

Henle-Koch´s rules that by transmission of bacteria, the supposed contagium

vivum, it was not possible to cause the same disease. So Koch

modified (weakened) the 3rd postulate of his teacher, the German anatomist

Henle, in the form that the generation of a similar symptom in animal

experiments would be sufficient to prove this hypothesis of disease cause,

namely the hypothesis of infectious bacteria. (See Großgebauer: Eine kurze

Geschichte der Mikroben).

So it does not surprise me that Prof. Alfred Fischer writes in his book

" Vorlesungen über Bakterien " ( " [academic] lectures on bacteria " ) from 1897

(!): " as is true for any infectious disease - the fact that it does not

only take the addition of the bacteria but also the unknown something of

individual predisposition, goes without saying. "

Stefan Lanka, Dec 2001

(Translation Juergen Faas, Dec 2001) (minor changes on March 2, 2002)

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

[Guest guest]

At 22:09 2006-08-31 +0100, you Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...> wrote:

>Addresses many so-called viruses, not just HIV

>

><http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm>http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

>

>GO TO WEBSITE FOR PHOTOS (or non-photos ) (and Stefan is gorgeous!)

>

>Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The " Viral Fraud "

>

>Pictures of " Isolated Viruses " Debunked

This article (from 2001) is indeed very important.

There is also an article by Stefan Lanka, from 01.03.2006, which I

have translated into English and put at my homepage, at

http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

It's headlined " Are there and can there be diseasecausing viruses? "

and explains in detail how actual viruses are isolated, photographed,

investigated

in detail as to their proteins and nucleic acids and thus documented, a

process

which he points out is so simple that anyone can learn how to carry it out.

This corroborates that which he pointed out in the 2001 article.

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

Rolf,

Thanks for your reply. I'm going to reply in-line.

>

> The social system in the world is one of oppression and exploitation

> of the vast majority of people by a small minority. Those ruling

> persons

> more and more fear the resistance to them by people everywhere. They

> are engaging in terrorizing people, and to split them up, in many ways.

I would agree with this to some extent, although since it has always

been this way, I would have to disagree that they " more and more " fear

resistance. It's human nature to want power, and, when you have power,

to want to retain that power.

> The medicine establishment since long - hundreds of years - has been

> an important, traditionally obedient, tool for the ruling minority.

What medical establishment are you talking about? " Modern " medicine has

only been around for about 200 years, and the truly " science-based " for

only about 100 -- that is, rejecting homeopathic or herbal remedies

such as belladonna and relying on scientific experiments to validate

procedures and medicines. Since those in power have always wanted to

retain power, wouldn't that extend to all types of medicine? Including

medicine men of American Indian tribes, or homeopathic doctors in the

past, or Chinese medicine? Those, after all, were the accepted medicine

of the power elites of the time, and surely those who disagreed were

met with disdain or hostility.

>

> " HIV " was invented for the purpose of making people suspicious of

> each other and not least to infect relations between men and women -

> also to infect relations between Africans and others.

Well, then, it hasn't worked very well. People still engage in risky

behavior and don't think they are going to get AIDS, that it's

something that happens to " other people. " That is human nature as well,

to not think " it " is going to happen to you, whatever " it " happens to

be. Furthermore, if you're going to manufacture a disease to make

people suspicious of each other, wouldn't you choose an airborne

disease, not one that specifically relies on sexual or blood

transmission? I would. The plagues of the past, such as bubonic plague,

did more to make people suspicious of each other than AIDS has.

>

> As to " AIDS " there is nothing that could justifiably be called that.

> Those who are said to " suffer from " or " have died from " " AIDS "

> have been afflicted with one of many different actual diseases

> which have just been renamed " AIDS " and which have nothing in

> common, none of which is caused by a virus.

See, now, to me, that requires a lot more faith in the unknown than

believing in a virus. AIDS is something that has spread only in recent

decades and, for the most part, has similar symptoms worldwide. That

isn't to say they are set in stone or that every medical person out

there is accurate in every way about AIDS. You can think that AIDS is

overdiagnosed or that too many symptoms are called AIDS without

disbelieving in AIDS. I mean, you could just as easily look back at

cholera, for example, and say that all those people died of different

things, if you wanted to disbelieve in cholera hard enough. Besides, if

you look at homeopathy, isn't it part of the philosophy that the same

disease can manifest itself differently in different people, therefore

different remedies are needed? I'm assuming you subscribe to homeopathy.

I also wonder -- why do you want to believe so much that viruses are

harmless?

>

> In Africa, it's diseases caused by poverty and bad sanitation.

> In the USA for instance, there was (or still is) a group of

> men practicing homosexuality who would/will often use a drug

> called " poppers " . Its use after several years will cause some of

> those diseases which in the early 1980s were renamed " AIDS " .

But poverty and bad sanitation have been around in Africa a lot longer

than AIDS. And what about in Asia? Europe? And it's not just gay people

in the U.S. getting AIDS.

>

> The definition of " AIDS " has been changed several times too,

> so as to make it appear that there are more " AIDS cases " , and

> the definition is even different in different continent.

Well, it makes sense that as knowledge of something grows, its

definition will change, too. Plate tectonics used to be called

" continental drift " until more was known about it. There's a big

difference between somebody changing the definition of something to

justify themselves (like a criminal: This is my car. I mean, this is

my friend's car, I borrowed it, he knows about it. OK, it's actually my

friend's car but he doesn't know I borrowed it but he said I could

borrow it at any time... etc.) and somebody changing a definition

because they learn more. Also, are the changes in definition BIG things

or LITTLE things? Little things can be expected. Big would signify a

greater problem perhaps with the whole premise or idea.

>

> The trick precisely lies in the *naming* of the affliction, on which

> all " establishment " persons then agree - the very word " AIDS "

> contains the terror.

Well, since I am faithful to my sexual partner (husband), and don't use

intravenous drugs, I honestly am not in terror of AIDS. Second, if this

establishment you mentioned is a small group of power-hungry leaders,

they've done a stupendous job of convincing thousands and thousands of

scientists around the world to participate in their fraud. Hell, if

they've done such a great job, maybe they DO deserve to be in power,

because the history of humanity is nothing less than a history of

incompetence and infighting. Do you believe in global warming?

Thousands of scientists around the world disagree, but our " power

elite " in Washington clings to the dissenting few who are suspicious of

the whole thing, much as you are suspicious of medicine. That isn't to

say that the majority is always right, or that there can't be " group

think " that would lead people to overlook problems in their theories to

sustain a comfortable worldview, but that isn't the same as a

conspiracy.

>

> In order to realize them, you need to see how very sharply those

> ruling the world stand in conflict with practically everybody, and

> how fanatically and concertedly they, and those professionally

> dependent on and allied to them - most physicians, for instance -

> will lie, on certain matters.

I agree with you that there is a lot of misinformation about there, and

that there are a lot of problems with the medical approach to life. I

think doctors, by and large, tend to be pretty arrogant and to want to

treat everything with drugs or surgery. They may even subtly want to

" keep the rest of us in line " in order to maintain their sense of

authority and superiority, but that's again because of human nature and

people not wanting to admit they're wrong, and that they have been

doing their jobs incompetently. It's a big stretch, in my opinion, to

assume that thousands of incompetent, self-interested people could

universally agree to be part of a worldwide conspiracy to subjugate us

all.

>

> The " HIV/AIDS " fraud has been exposed publicly since many years

> back, yet all the mass media, for instance, are continuing to try

> to uphold it.

>

So the mass media are part of the conspiracy? There sure are lots and

lots of people in on this conspiracy. Have you ever run an

organization? Do you know how hard it is to get even 3 or 4 people to

agree to ANYTHING? Look at the tyrants of the past -- Hitler and

Stalin. They had to resort to widescale killing of their enemies to

keep the disagreement down. Even still, there were people in their

ranks who dissented and gladly would have bumped them off and taken

their place. Given that, how do these conspirators get so many to

placidly go along with them?

Do you personally know anybody in the medical establishment? Somebody

you know and like? My brother-in-law is a scientist, and, while I don't

necessarily agree with his worldview on everything, he's not a bad guy,

he disagrees with some of the stuff out there too, and I'm pretty sure

he's not involved in any conspiracy to keep the rest of us down.

Conspiracy theories just don't work for me, Rolf, honestly. Partly

because I think human beings, as a rule, are too incompetent to pull

off a really good conspiracy, and partly because if you believe one

conspiracy theory, you could believe them all, since they all share the

worldview that somebody out there is in charge and it isn't us and

they're out to get us. Then you end up suspicious of everything and

everyone and well, basically like what you're describing how this

so-called ruling elite wants us to be (divided, suspicious of each

other, etc.).

Anyway, that's my perspective. I suspect you won't agree, but that's

OK. Just wanted to add my .02. Take care,

Angie