Dr Stefan Lanka exposes the Viral Fraud (from 2002 - on purportedly
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:54 am
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/conten ... d_flu.html or
http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/0510 ... rd_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/0603 ... ruses.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
whether or not a publication contains proof of the existence of a virus:
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.b) 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network (new website)
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one May 9, 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones fall 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
fall 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
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/conten ... d_flu.html or
http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/0510 ... rd_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/0603 ... ruses.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
whether or not a publication contains proof of the existence of a virus:
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.b) 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network (new website)
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one May 9, 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones fall 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
fall 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936