Viruses: Do they exist?

[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

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/medical/viralinfections.html

Viral Infections

What do we know?

by Dr Quanten MD

I don't agree with all of this but you will get the idea about the

question about viruses

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/slanka.htm

http://thereikimatrix.blogspot.com/2008/12/dr-stefan-lanka-exposes-viral-fraud.html

http://aunk.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/15/4683380-dr-stefan-lanka-exposes-the-viral-fraud

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://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080405230428/http://www.rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

webpage archived here

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.

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian

Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy

http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy

Online/email courses - next classes start May 8