Since the late 1800s, the medical establishment has asserted that germs are the cause of numerous diseases
This forms basis of “Germ Theory” and the allopathic concept of one disease/one germ/one treatment.
These ‘germs’ include:
- bacteria and fungi, which have been shown to exist,
- and “viruses,” which have never been shown to exist
The definition of a virus is a tiny particle consisting of proteinaceous coat within which is its genome (DNA or RNA). It is said to be an intracellular parasite that can infect and replicate inside a host organism, causing disease. However, it has never been demonstrated that any such particles have these properties. Bringing into question the whole theory of “viruses” as the cause of disease
“Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historical misinterpretation.” – Dr. Stefan Lanka, PhD
The term isolation
No one has been able to provide a single peer-reviewed journal article showing an isolated virus causes disease.
It should be so easy to look through the literature and find a study in a couple of minutes, yet there doesn’t seem to be such a thing. Scientists and doctors have already done countless experiments to try and prove germ theory over the course of 120+ years, and failed.
The virologists seemed to give up on trying to isolate viruses from diseased tissue in the 1950s. Virologists whose profession and funding depend on the presence of viruses, in the modern erafocus almost exclusively on indirect molecular detection techniques. Resorting to indirect techniques to “isolate” alleged viruses. With the results of which researchers may declare that they have “isolated” a virus, but no virus is required to produce these outcomes. Methodology itself can produce the “evidence” without any virus at all!
A public challenge has been made to virologists to perform blinded and controlled experiments to test whether their indirect techniques are even valid on their own terms.
Time to call the search off?
- In March of 1919 Rosenau & Keegan conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people. https://jamanetwork.com/jour…/jama/article-abstract/221687
- In November 1919, 8 separate experiments were conducted by Rosenau et al. in a group of 62 men trying to prove that influenza is contagious and causes disease. In all 8 experiments, 0/62 men became sick. Another set of 8 experiments were undertaken in December of 1919 by McCoy et al. in 50 men to try and prove contagion. Once again, all 8 experiments failed to prove people with influenza, or their bodily fluids cause illness. 0/50 men became sick. In 1919, Wahl et al. conducted 3 separate experiments to infect 6 healthy men with influenza by exposing them to mucous secretions and lung tissue from sick people. 0/6 men contracted influenza in any of the three studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30082102?seq=1…
- In 1920, Schmidt et al conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857/https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102609951
- In 1921, Williams et al. tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857/
- In 1924, Robertson & Groves exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. The authors concluded that 0/100 became sick as a result of being exposed to the bodily secretions. https://academic.oup.com/…/article…/34/4/400/832936…
- In 1930, Dochez et al. attempted to infect a group of men experimentally with the common cold. The authors stated in their results, something that is nothing short of amazing. “It was apparent very early that this individual was more or less unreliable and from the start it was possible to keep him in the dark regarding our procedure. He had inconspicuous symptoms after his test injection of sterile broth and no more striking results from the cold filtrate, until an assistant, on the second day after injection, inadvertently referred to this failure to contract a cold. That evening and night the subject reported severe symptomatology, including sneezing, cough, sore throat and stuffiness in the nose. The next morning he was told that he had been misinformed in regard to the nature of the filtrate and his symptoms subsided within the hour. It is important to note that there was an entire absence of objective pathological changes”. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869798/
- In 1937 Burnet & Lush conducted an experiment exposing 200 healthy people to bodily secretions from people infected with influenza. 0/200 became sick. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065253/
- In 1940, Burnet and Foley tried to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/j.1326-5377.1940…
Has the “Killer Virus” been identified.
Stefan Lanka, a virologist, has conducted the first ever proper control experiments of both virology’s cell culture virus isolation experiments and the so-called genomic sequencing of SARS-COV-2, the foundational evidence for all of COVID19.
If you read the methodology of any “SARS-COV-2 virus isolation paper”, you will find that the procedure for isolation is as follows:
- Minimally filtered snot from a sick host is added to a cell culture (monkey kidney cell) alongside cytotoxic antibiotics like gentamicin/amphotericin (usually at 3x normal concentration).
- They also add “minimal nutrient medium,” which is the minimal amounts of nutrients— DMEM (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium) and fetal bovine serum— to keep the cell alive.
- They also sometimes add trypsin.
- The cell breaks down into a bunch of fragments— called the cytopathic effect. They then stain and heat the fragments to prepare them for electron microscopy, take pictures of them and call them “viruses.”
In phase 1 of Stefan’s control experiment, he followed the exact same procedure except that he did not introduce a sample from a sick host (which virologists presuppose contains the virus, but never validate) to the culture, but used all of the other same ingredients.
The exact same cytopathic effect happened, thus proving that the foundational evidence used by virologists to claim the existence of a pathogenic virus is pure pseudoscience!
In phase 2 of the control experiment, Stefan used all of the same ingredients as in the control (antibiotics, minimal nutrient medium, etc.), except that he added yeast to take the place of the snot that supposedly contains the virus and the supposed virus RNA that is uploaded into a computer program to generate a so-called “viral genome.”
Virology is based on computer modeling
As Dr. Cowan describes in his recent book, Breaking the Spell, “the reason for adding the yeast RNA is because of the way that the genome of a ‘virus’ is found, a computerized process called ‘alignment.’
The alignment process starts with fragments of RNA and constructs a theoretical genome—one that never exists at any point in the actual sample. This genome never exists in any person, and it never exists intact even in the culture results; it exists only inside the computer, based on an alignment process that arranges these short pieces into an entire ‘genome.’
It is for this reason that every complete genome of SARS-CoV-2 is referred to as an ‘in silico’ genome, meaning a genome that exists only in the computer. As long as you have enough of these RNA fragments and provide the template, the computer can recreate any genome.”
As qualified nurse, health scientist and educator for the health professions Kevin Corbett, explains virology is based on computor modelling.
“The W.H.O. admitted that they developed the [PCR] test based on in silico modelled genetic sequence; not a real element taken from patients. That’s true. That’s NOT a conspiracy theory. That’s the truth“
Has any virus ever been shown to exist?
Bacteriophages and giant viruses can be found in nature and have been truly isolated. However, as Dr Stefan Lanka has suggested these do not appear to be pathogenic (disease causing) in nature.
I’m not aware of any alleged virus that has been directly isolated from a human or any other animal.
Virology is a deeply entrenched paradigm
Doctors have been mislead by Big Pharma’s funded fake science discipline called “virology” to believe that viruses exist … even in the absence of objective evidence of their existence.
The global corona pandemic is simply based on assumptions and on agreed consensus and not science at all. With leading Corona researchers admitting that they have no scientific proof for the existence of a virus.
Freedom of information requests have revealed that health/science institutions around the world (187 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, ever anywhere!
When it comes to the “discovery of viruses, ” there is simply no reliable data.
Everything you were taught and led to believe about viruses, is quite probably false. There is not one viral outbreak, in history, that can be linked to its respective virus.
The book Virus Mania is utterly clear. It is not possible to read the book and/or watch the Viral Delusion series and still take viruses and virology seriously, They both present hard facts. No supposition and expose virology as terrible pseudoscience.
Measles virus process – Interview by Michael Delias with Dr. Stefan Lanka:
How dead are virus anyway? All claims of virus existence refuted – Interview Michael Delias/Dr. Stefan Lanka