Virus Lies

[Guest guest]

Dr Stefan Lanka exposes the " Viral Fraud " (from 2002 - on purportedly

existing " diseasecausing viruses " in general):

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

Interview with Stefan Lanka on " bird flu " etc 27.10.2005:

http://www.klein-klein-aktion.de/contents/Bird_Flu/bird_flu.html or

http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/051027_interview_s_lanka_on_bird_flu_etc.html

Also: An article by Stefan Lanka, 01.03.2006, " Are there and can there be

diseasecausing viruses " (written in particular with a view to that big hoax

about there existing a " bird flu virus " ):

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

Newsletter klein-klein-verlag, 01.03.2006

There are no diseasecausing viruses

[Translation from the German by Rolf Martens, 08.04.2006]

Are there and can there be diseasecausing viruses?

Dr Stefan Lanka

Here's an article which makes it possible for every layman to check on

whether or not a publication contains proof of the existence of a virus:

Viruses are defined as small objects which are produced in a cell, which

can leave the cell and the organism and can enter a cell again, in which they

can again be multiplied.

Those objects which are called viruses consist of a coat of proteins and contain

a piece of nucleic acid.

The nucleic acid of the actually existing viruses consists of double-stranded,

circularly closed DNA.

In the case of the actually existing viruses, never have diseasecausing

properties been observed; on the contrary.

Anyone who takes note of the research results of Dr Hamer, which are scientific

and thus possible to check on and to reproduce, will realize that there cannot

be any diseasecausing viruses.

Anyone who takes note of the results of evolutionary biology and matrices

research, which are scientific and thus possible to check on and to reproduce,

will realize that there in more complex organisms, such as humans, animals and

plants, cannot be any objects which you could characterize as viruses.

If you maintain that a virus exists, you must also publish the proof of this in

a scientific publication and describe and document all the steps undertaken for

this proof to be obtained.

Only when statements in the form of publications are possible to check on and

the results described are possible to reproduce can you speak of science.

Everything else is not science.

A publication about a proof of the existence of a virus of course must contain

the photos of the isolated viruses and those of the viruses which are in the

body or in the bodily fluids. This a layman can check on in a very simple

manner.

In a virus proof, the biochemical characterization of the proteins and the

nucleic acid of the virus is particularly important. The description of a

biochemical characterization of the proteins and the nucleic acid of a virus

every layman can follow.

Whether a typical stripe pattern is reproduced and is present as documentation

of the characterization of the proteins and the nucleic acid in the

corresponding publication, this every layman can check on EASILY and AT ONCE

too.

There are three easy possibilities for a layman to check on statements about the

existence of a virus.

1. The photo of the isolated virus:

The photo of the isolated virus is the simplest thing in the whole job of virus

isolation. It takes 20 minutes for the photo to be taken, after the virus has

been isolated.

To the photo there of course belongs an accurate description of how and by what

steps the virus was isolated.

Naturally, to this there also belongs my being able to present a photo of the

virus in the organism, and this of course must have the same appearance and the

same structures as that virus which I isolated. Here too of course is necessary

also a description of how that photo came about.

The descriptions must be so clear and made in such detail that anyone can repeat

the steps in this process and also carry it out him/herself.

To note concerning 1.:

In the entire scientific literature, there is no photo of a purportedly

diseasecausing virus which is maintained to be a photo of an isolated virus!

Also there is not a single photo of a purportedly diseasecausing virus which is

maintained to be a photo of a virus supposedly existing in the organism, in the

blood, in the spittle or in any other bodily fluid.

2.The proteins of the virus:

The most important thing in the isolating of a virus is the biochemical

characterization of its component parts. How else will you be able later to

maintain that a particular protein or a particular nucleic acid originates from

a virus? How, then, can later an indirect test work, if the proteins and nucleic

acids have never been isolated and investigated.

The proteins are separated from each other, in accordance with their respective

lengths, by means of a process called gel electrophoresis, and are then given

colouring. There arises a stripe pattern which provides information about how

many different kinds of proteins are included in the construction of the virus

and what different sizes they have.

The process of separating the proteins of the virus according to their lengths

is described in detail, and the stripe pattern is photographed and published.

The proteins can then be investigated, even as to their respective individual

composition, in further experiments.

To note concerning 2.:

Not in one single publication is there a photo of the stripe pattern of such

proteins, separated from each other with a gel electrophoresis process, which

would be included in the construction of a purportedly diseasecausing virus.

In those publications which maintain that diseasecausing viruses exist, nowhere

does there appear any documentation whatsoever of a biochemical characterization

of proteins from an isolated virus.

3. The nucleic acid of the virus:

The nucleic acid of the virus, which has been separated from the proteins with a

simple process, is separated by means of a process called gel electrophoresis,

in accordance with the acid's length, and is then given colouring. On the gel, a

stripe becomes visible. Nucleic acids of known lengths, which have been

separated in parallel to the nucleic acid of the virus, provide by comparison a

first hint of the length of that isolated nucleic acid.

For further characterization of the nucleic acid of the virus, it is cut up

biochemically and the resulting parts again separated by means of gel

electrophoresis. This produces a specific stripe pattern, which has become known

also to the general public as that seen in the so-called genetic fingerprint.

In further investigations, the more precise composition of the nucleic acid can

be investigated.

The results of these experiments of course are photographed and published.

Obviously you need proof for your statements about how long is that nucleic acid

which originates from the virus and about what are its component parts.

The techniques mentioned here are so simple that unprepared groups of schoolboys

and schoolgirls and of journalists have managed, guided only by the written

instructions in the publications, independently and in the course of two

afternoons to isolate that virus which I isolated, to characterize it

biochemically (as described above) and to document the results.

(Including the electron microscope photographs of the isolated viruses. The

photographing of viruses in an organism takes appr. 2-3 days, since the cells

must be dehydrated and chemically fixed before they are cut into waferthin

slices, which is a precondition for your seeing anything in them at all.)

To note concerning 3.:

There is in no publication a documentation of a separation of a nucleic acid

about which it is maintained that it originates from a diseasecausing virus.

Also, there is in none of those publications which maintain that diseasecausing

viruses exist that typical stripe pattern, resulting from a biochemical

separation, which has become known also to a broader public as that seen in the

so-called genetic fingerprint.

Summary:

1.a) On the basis of a photo claimed to show a supposedly isolated virus, any

layman can check on whether something at all has been isolated here or not: If

there in that photo, which is maintained to show an isolated virus, are parts

which differ in size, then it can be seen at once that this is an untruth, since

isolated viruses are all equally large.

It is only from the invention of the idea of an Ebola virus on that, as is the

case now with H5N1, there have been claims about there existing sausage-shaped

viruses. With H5N1 of course, things are even merrier, since here there are

circulating the most different photos - all outside of scientific publications -

some of which show the purported virus as a sausage, others showing it as an

unshapely blister.

1. Photographs of viruses, maintained to be diseasecausing, in a human or an

animal or in a bodily fluid from any such - in which of course such a virus is

supposed to multiply and in which it supposedly exists in vast quantities - do

not exist! This every layman can check on: Is there, or is there not, a photo of

a virus claimed to be diseasecausing, about which it is maintained that it is

found in a human or in a bodily fluid?

All photographs of viruses which are maintained to be diseasecausing are

photographs of quite normal component parts of cells or of artificially produced

particles. In all scientific publications which claim that photos contained in

them are photos of diseasecausing viruses, this even is described. Every layman

who understands English can check on this: By reading!

2.) Every layman can check on, whether in any publication whatsoever, in which

the existence of a diseasecausing virus is maintained, the biochemical

characterization of proteins of the purported virus is described or documented.

Such a documentation and description does not exist. When proteins with this or

that property are mentioned, these never appear directly but purportedly are

being proved " indirectly " .

To prove with indirect methods (for instance so-called antibodies) the existence

of proteins, which have earlier never been directly proved to exist, is not

possible.

The trick is easy to see through:

Proteins from the blood (globulins) simply are maintained to be antibodies.

Depending on laboratory conditions, globulins will either combine or will not

combine with other substances. If there is combining, then it is maintained that

an indirect existence proof has been obtained. This is a historic swindle with

dramatic consequences.

3. Every layman can check on whether there concerning a virus which is claimed

to exist is a publication in which the biochemical characterization of the

nucleic acid of the virus is described and documented. In the case of the

purportedly diseasecausing viruses, there is no such publication.

This automatically means that the so-called indirect methods for proving the

existence of a nucleic acid in the case of the viruses claimed to be

diseasecausing are only proving the existence of such nucleic acids which were

already in the organism in beforehand. That's how simple this is!

In use today is the so-called nucleic-acid multiplication method PCR. That

method makes sense only if there is no more than very small amounts of nucleic

acid present. If there were just a few thousand viruses present, then there

would have been no need first very laboriously to multiply nucleic acid in order

then to say, here is the nucleic acid of the virus.

With the indirect PCR method of proof, which today is being claimed to

constitute a direct virus proof method, arbitrary manipulation can be

undertaken: Depending on what kind of nucleic acid you use, whether DNA or RNA

as source from which to proceed, you can cause people, as is being done in the

HIV PCR test, to test arbitrarily either " positive " or " negative " .

The H5N1 PCR test now in use is testing every animal and every human positive,

because that nucleic acid which is multiplied in it and which is maintained to

be specific for H5N1 is found in every animal and every human. Thus it came

about too that today the cat at the island of Rügen was tested " positive " .

Thus it in the next few days, as I assume, will also come about that the first

human, at Rügen or on the shore of Lake Constance - someone who, through

retardation of the essential and vital neuramidase enzymes in his or her body by

means of Tamiflu dispensing, has been poisoned in advance - will be tested " H5N1

positive " , so that the pandemic plan and the predictions are fulfilled.

To the forum Agenda-Leben:

P.S. I shall be happy to put my degree and doctoral dissertation, written in

German, and my English-language publications about my virus discovery, isolation

and characterization at the disposal of any dedicated forum member who would

like to scan them in here in order to make them available in the forum. I hope

that by this the stealing of time and causing of confusion by certain people

here in the forum, who have played at being critical and cynical, might finally

come to an end.

Of course you can also obtain my degree and doctoral dissertation via the

inter-library loan service of the Konstanz university library.