Stefan Lanka: “Viruses are not microbes and have
no infectious capacity”

The well-known German virologist Stefan Lanka assures us that viruses are neither microbes nor do they have infectious capacity, so Covid-19 could not have been caused by a coronavirus such as the alleged SARS-CoV-2, the existence of which has not been proven. This is what he assured us during an exclusive video interview in which he also explains that it is time to question everything that Virology, Microbiology and Medicine say about viruses. Moreover, he asserts that the tests used for Covid-19 are a scam, that the figures of supposedly “infected” and “killed by” are unrealistic and that vaccines are not going to solve anything and are also very dangerous.

Download or read the PDF here.

Excerpt on Virus Isolation

-Let’s talk about virus isolation and purification. Just type the word isolation into any Internet search engine and you will find a multitude of articles in which the authors claim to have isolated viruses. Are their claims true? In fact, after the Wuhan team claimed to have isolated and sequenced a new coronavirus that affected respiration in a similar way to SARS-CoV and named it SARS-CoV-2, there have been many more researchers claiming to have found and isolated it. What can you tell us about this?

I can summarise that in 7 points but first I have to explain how a local panic in Wuhan turned into the global coronavirus crisis through the mediation of German virologist Christian Drosten.

At the end of December 2019 a Chinese ophthalmologist living in Wuhan spread a rumour that seven people were isolated in his clinic who were allegedly infected by a SARS virus. The doctor was really just informing people close to him to protect themselves, but the message leaked out.

Panic soon spread and people began flocking to hospitals at the slightest sign of cough, asthma, bronchitis or pneumonia. The The authorities then pressured ophthalmologist Li Wenliang not to talk about the situation. China is an iron-fisted dictatorship and he knew he would be sent to a gulag or killed if he failed to comply. Thanks to Dr. Hamer’s knowledge, we now know that such a fear for physical integrity can trigger a biological shock that affects the lungs in multiple ways and can lead, in the repair phase of the conflict, to bronchitis. Well, on 10 January 2020, the doctor developed symptoms of bronchitis and was quarantined at his parents’ home. The parents also started coughing and he was convinced that a 92-year-old patient had infected him the previous day. However, the woman did not seem to have any symptoms, nor did the other patients he treated. Even his parents were quickly cured. Li Wenliang started taking antiretrovirals for treatment and trying all kinds of viral tests, but the results were negative.

Finally, on 29 January, he tested positive for one: the Christian Drosten test! Believing he was going to die, he made public both the test result and the police document – which he signed under duress – stating that he had finally tested positive and it was a SARS virus. The news caused panic. Drosten had entered the scene a few weeks earlier, as soon as he heard that a possible outbreak of the SARS virus had been detected in China, but he began to develop his detection test before the sequence of the alleged “new virus” had even been made public! How? By using sequences allegedly associated with the old SARS-CoV virus of 2003.

It was on 10 January that the Chinese authorities made public the genetic sequence of the virus they were supposed to have found. It was the genome of what they understood to be a harmless virus found in bats. At the same time, however, Drosten sent his first tests to China from Germany, and although its primers had nothing to do with those in the published sequence, they were used and the first positives appeared. In response, the Chinese authorities began to isolate all pneumonia patients, their families and hospital staff who had had contact with the first 49 patients considered infected up to 20 January, and determined that no one had been infected! The first conclusion reached was that the virus was not very contagious but was transmitted from animals to humans and it was determined that the source of infection may have been a meat market in Wuhan which was closed and disinfected. Drosten’s test sent from Germany had come into the hands of a friend of his who had already made his fortune during the SARS-CoV crisis of 2003. He boarded a train from southern China bound for Wuhan carrying the first two positive Drosten test results. The suspected infectees had not been to Wuhan so they were assumed to have been infected by someone in the area but the press conference he gave in Wuhan sparked chaos.

The Chinese authorities were discredited in the eyes of the public because the test showed that the SARS virus was highly contagious from person to person and Li Wenliang came to be regarded as a “hero”. The city of Wuhan was placed under strict quarantine in order to control the panic. It must be said that this was as far as the Chinese government went. The other quarantines were geographically very limited and there were never many positive cases reported. From the beginning they understood that the detection tests were useless from the beginning and they intentionally made little use of them. This is why their infection figures have remained so low. In Europe, on the other hand, they opted for massive testing, national quarantines and the destruction of the economy. This is the context. But what do virologists do?

You only have to read any of their publications. In particular, you have to go to the Materials and Methods section to see that virologists are wrong on seven fundamental points, as well as acting unscientifically by not carrying out control tests; and on top of that, they are self-refuting.

Point 1. Virologists inadvertently kill cells in the test tube. They remove the tissue sample from the feeding solution and apply cytotoxic antibiotics. In other words, they starve and poison the cells to death. And once the sample has been “prepared” in this way, they apply tissue that is supposedly infected with the virus, but the truth is that the original tissue will die and decompose even if sterile material is applied. Well, since 1954 it has been assumed that cell death is due to the presence of the virus. And it is understood that the virus is present in the test tube because the tissue has been taken from an infected patient. Then, from that cell and tissue mass, genetic fragments are obtained and conceptually sorted to obtain “a viral genome”. However, the relevant control tests to see if the healthy tissue dies and decomposes without adding anything are never carried out. Well, from this dead organic material, vaccines are made; if the whole material is used, they are called “live attenuated vaccines” or if only certain proteins are used, “inactivated or killed vaccines”.

In short, they find what they want to find! That they never find a complete viral genome and have to construct it that way is a clear indication that, quite simply, there is no such viral genome, there is no virus.

Point 2. Virologists assume that the virus is in the millions of tiny fragments of genetic material in that mixture of dead cells, so they pick out a few and sort or align them to build – using computer programmes! a complete viral genome that they have not actually found. In fact, neither in cell cultures like these, nor in saliva, nor in blood has a complete viral genome ever been found. They construct it artificially. So it is the first team of virologists that constructs a viral genome that determines what it looks like, and all the others repeat the same alienation process so they get a result that is 99.99% identical to the reference genome, the one that was supposed to have been “isolated” the first time. In short, they find what they want to find! That they never find a complete viral genome and have to construct it that way is a clear indication that, quite simply, there is no such viral genome, there is no virus.

Point 3. The millions of fragments of genetic material that the tissues and cells under study release at death contain a great deal of material from microbes, many of which are not even known. The organism constantly generates new RNA independently of DNA, which was not thought possible. However, virologists who follow in the footsteps of the group that first “sequenced” a virus simply replicate the procedure and arrive at the same result. That is, they take as a reference, as a template, the original sequence – when it is nothing more than a theoretical and mathematical construct -, find the same pieces and reach the same conclusion. Nobody performs the following control test: from the same database of genetic material, instead of being guided by the reference template, they should try to construct other supposed viral genomes with the same information; for example, genomes of other RNA viruses such as HIV, HIV-like viruses, HIV-like viruses and HIV-like viruses. RNA viruses such as HIV, measles or Ebola. But, of course, they don’t do that. It should be added that the idea that the death of cells in a test tube is caused by infected material being added dates back to 1954 and was the brainchild of Nobel laureate John Franklin Enders.

Point 4. Electron microscope photos taken by Microtomy are supposed to be of viral particles but what they actually show are typical components of decaying cells and tissues. The particles in the photos presented to us as viruses have never been biochemically characterised, nor isolated. Then they also disprove themselves. They show pictures of particles but do not work exclusively with them because they do not isolate (separate) them from the rest.

Point 5. In the Petri dish, the virologists shake and suck up the contents of the decaying cells and tissues with fine needles and inject them back into the Petri dish. The content of this liquid is a mixture of proteins, fats, torn tissue and cell fragments and chemicals. Well, the absorption of the liquid with the needle and its re-injection causes tiny bubbles to which a dye is applied when microscopic images are taken, and these pictures are then published as if what appears in them were viral particles. However, they are not biochemically characterised to show that they actually contain a viral genome.

Point 6. None of the microscopic photographs claiming to show a virus have been taken from samples of blood, saliva or other body fluids of any person, animal or plant. They work with artificial cellular systems that only exist in Petri dishes and laboratory test tubes and have nothing to do with what goes on inside organisms. If they want to prove what they say is true, let them isolate and photograph viruses in blood or saliva samples! It is striking that today we have to wear masks because it is said that the virus spreads like an aerosol and it turns out that no virus has ever been seen or photographed in saliva.

There is no science here, but anti-science. The refutation of the official version is on the table and this alone destroys any legal justification for the measures being taken.

Point 7. Infection experiments are carried out on animals in order to cause symptoms similar to those ascribed to coronavirus. The idea is to demonstrate that the virus spreads and causes a range of symptoms. This is done by injecting fluid into their brains or by inserting a tube into their lungs. Well, what that causes is aspiration pneumonia, but not because the fluid they are injected with has coronavirus in it: any sterile fluid would cause inflammation of the lungs (pneumonia)! Reading such studies, one realises that the symptoms described are caused by the cruelty of the experiment itself and not by the pathogen they are supposedly inoculated with, be it “X” or “Y”, HIV or SARS-CoV-2. Hence, here too, no control experiments are carried out. Seven rebuttals and seven blatantly unscientific procedures. In the infection protection laws of many countries, scientific rigour is demanded of all those involved, and this is being seriously flouted. There is no science here, but anti-science. The refutation of the official version is on the table and this alone destroys any legal justification for the measures being taken.

Download or read the PDF here.

Choose your Reaction!
Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.