THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Post Reply
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by sharpstuff » Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:30 am

EPIDEMIC EPIDEMICS


Unproven and unprovable assumption: Germs/viruses cause ‘disease’. So-called ‘diseases’ like ‘influenza’ or the ‘common cold’ appear at certain times of the year apparently in mainly the so-called ‘Winter months’.

So what happens during this period that precipitates this?

My answer: The human body works best in a particular environment, such as heat, cold, accessibility to certain available required foodstuffs or anything in between, depending upon where one lives. The range between heat and cold is determined by Nature for all biological forms according to the nature of the, what we call, the ‘Universe’. That we have digitised this universe does not give us a clue as what actually happens at the analogue of ‘time’ which we digitise as hours, minutes, months, years and so forth.

If we do not prepare ourselves for our ever-changing environment using natural means, we are then subject to creating anomalies of Nature. Not enough ‘sun’ or too much ‘sun’ (for example) will not prepare our bodies for proper perpetuation within this ever-changing environment.
Our diets (whatever they are) our clothing, our particular responses to change will determine our ‘health status’, if you will.

It was/are ‘germs’ and later ‘viruses’ that are deemed to ‘cause’ disease, although this can easily be ‘debunked’ as bunkum, it is still the well held and engineered ‘theory’ that these alleged entities are responsible for our irresponsibility relating to how we lead our lives or are deprived of such through foreign intervention or poor living conditions most often not of our own making (the various ‘plagues’ of history as we are led to believe).

However, we are to be presented with the notion of these spurious non-entities that can cause an ‘epidemic’ or even ‘pandemic’ for the realities that we do not, in fact, ‘look after ourselves’ according to the needs of our bodies, for one reason or another, or season or another.

In simple, if we imbibe the most natural ingredients that suit our particular bodily needs (diet and the catalyst of ‘sunlight’, for example) appropriate for the time of ‘year’, then we will not be blessed with runny noses and coughs, etcetera.
However, assuming (incorrectly) that there are ‘pathogens’, we must still ask questions!

So far as I can gather (and stand to be corrected) we have the notion of an epidemic or pandemic (even if they are pancomic). [Beware the back-stories!]

Apparently, epidemics/pandemics…..start…..peak…..trail off

1. Who and how does one determine or initiate the start?
2. Who, how and when does one determine a peak?
3. Who and what initiates this apparent ‘trailing off’?

My personal answers:

1.Those who consider themselves as the ‘illuminati’ (or whatever) and need to demonise other groups or wish to maintain a precipitous hold on their apparent ‘power’.
2.The same group or groups who wish to end their exercise to see where it might lead to their constant fear of their demise.
3.Engineering their benevolence at being able to control others by their methods of convincing others of their ability to control the ignorance/indoctrination of the general public by their false claims as to their worthiness as ‘leaders’.

‘The rest is silence…’ (‘Hamlet the Prince of Denmark’, attributed to the ‘Shakespeare’ consortium.)

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6929
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:14 pm

*


VEXATA QUAESTIO: WHAT VIRUS?


Dear incarcerated freedom friends,

Here's my best (computer-aided) translation of a most excellent essay by Prof. Francesco Amendola of the Academia Adriatica di Filosofia.

VEXATA QUAESTIO: WHAT VIRUS? http://www.accademianuovaitalia.it/inde ... uale-virus

Image

"Very few, in Italy and in most other countries, know the name of Stefan Lanka , a German microbiologist who became a virologist almost by chance, and came to the conclusion, during his laboratory experiences, that viruses simply do not exist : that is, they do not exist in the sense in which they are commonly conceived, as pathogens that settle as parasites in a living organism (human, animal or vegetable) and can make it sick, leading to death. Already known to the public in his country for declaring that the HIV virus does not exist, in 2011 he announced publicly that he would pay a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove, with full scientific evidence, the existence of one of the best known viruses, that of measles. Enticed by the large sum, many came forward and in 2015 a tribunal wronged him, awarding the prize to a researcher who had presented a voluminous classical-type documentation.

Lanka, however, did not give up and appealed the ruling; the second sentence, issued in 2016, overturned the first, declaring, with the support of a group of biologists, that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of the measles virus. Of course, the whole story was talked about as little as possible, so that the disconcerting news did not reach the public opinion: the scientists admit that no one has ever seen the measles virus, therefore it is impossible to say if it really exists, or not . But then, if this has been ascertained in the case of measles, what about more recent viruses, such as that of HIV or, in our days, of the coronavirus? It's okay that we are all aware, some more and some less, that we have had the fate of living in the times of post-truth : but up to this point? It is clear that such news should cause the entire apparatus of official science and in particular of modern Western medicine to creak.

The implications of Lanka's theory, which coincides, in the final analysis, or at least integrates perfectly with that of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer (and which he does not present as a theory, but as a scientific evidence, verifiable and documentable, under the overall name of Five Biological Laws ; such evidence that seems to be absent in the field of virology) are shocking in scope. In practice, if confirmed, the thesis of Lanka (and Hamer) is that there are no "malignant" pathogens, nor "crazy" cells to which the tumor formations are due, but various pathologies that start when the psyche undergoes one emotional shock that is somatized in different ways in different organs, according to a very precise, documentable and demonstrable pattern. The basic idea is holistic: there is no clear separation between the soma, the body, and the psyche, the spiritual element: this separation is a relatively recent fruit in the history of European medical thought, and was codified by Descartes; however, the entire building of modern medicine was built on it, despite the fact that, until the 1500s, for all antiquity and the Middle Ages, medicine considered mind and body as two complementary aspects of a unique reality.

But what, then, are those entities called viruses by microbiologists, and to which modern medicine attributes the origin of contagious diseases called, precisely, viral? Nothing but rotting bacteria residues that are created in vitro, when these cells are subjected to strong stresses, at very fast rates, which do not exist in nature. In nature, bacteria, if deprived of food, slowly extinguish; and, over time, they produce spores, which remain potentially vital for hundreds of years, so much so that they can resume their normal metabolism even after very long periods of quiescence. In the laboratory, on the other hand, the cells that break up form an acellular residue, which we could define as "energy quanta", but which biologists have defined as viruses, or "toxins, poisons", according to the Latin etymology, attributing them a pathogenic nature.

In other words, viruses do not exist in nature : they are formed only in vitro, because of the artificial procedures that the cells undergo during the experiments. If so, it must be admitted that experimental science has produced something that does not exist in the natural state to which a pathogenic and malevolent nature is attributed, while this nature would be the result of speculation and not of true observations. This, in fact, is an idea that is not entirely foreign to us since the physics of subatomic particles has familiarized us with the idea that the very fact of observation modifies the progress of an experiment, in the sense that particles, for example photons, in the laboratory, even if they are only observed and not stimulated, behave in such an anomalous way as to reveal indirectly that, in nature, they would behave differently.

According to official science, bacteria are prokaryotic single-celled organisms - that is, without a nucleus defined by a nuclear membrane, typical of eukaryotes - which parasitize other organisms and reproduce there; some of them do not cause the death of the host organism, in which they can even settle in millions, without this suffering from it; others, however, are attributed to the spread of very serious diseases such as typhoid, plague, leprosy, cholera, tetanus. Bacteria, however, are organisms, albeit tiny; whereas as viruses are concerned, which are much smaller and cellless, nobody has ever been able to convincingly specify what they really are, so much so that many biologists prefer to place them in a separate kingdom, located halfway between organic matter, living, and inorganic, non-living.

These days Italy, Europe and the world are in check because of the coronavirus pandemic. Commercial activities are semi-paralyzed, public offices and schools are closed, and so are cinemas, theaters, gyms; Mass is no longer celebrated and many churches have been closed; flights to and from abroad are blocked, borders are partially sealed, foreign tourists cancel reservations and Italian ones abroad are sent back or placed in quarantine. But if the measles virus does not exist, or at least if its existence is not scientifically proven; and if the same can be said for that of HIV, then who assures us that it is different for Coronavirus? It is a disturbing question, such as to shed a completely new light on the entire scenario of the dramatic health emergency that Europe and the world, especially our country, are experiencing in this month of March 2020."
The article then links to this two-part interview (in German with Italian subtitles) :
INTERVIEW WITH STEFAN LANKA (Part1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOSyaSgHFQ
INTERVIEW WITH STEFAN LANKA (Part2): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WdXf9Lb6Ls

After a few comments and a brief Italian transcript of a passage of Stefan Lanka's interview, Lamendola's article goes on and concludes as follows:

It is worth to listen to the entire interview before drawing conclusions. However, it seems extremely remarkable to us that five eminent scholars, specifically asked to settle, once and for all, the vexata quaestio, had to conclude that there is no proof of the existence of the measles virus. Extending this statement to other viruses, it would appear that biologists have created a non-existent entity in order to attribute the origin of a series of diseases to it.

We personally do not have the scientific expertise to adhere to the Lanka thesis; however, it seems surprising to us that scientists, and especially biologists, have not considered investigating a matter of this magnitude, which, if that thesis is confirmed, would totally revolutionize our ideas on health, disease and official medicine, the one that is taught at universities and the only one that a doctor or biologist recognizes as certain and true. And no less strange seems the silence of scientific communicators and specialized journalists, to which many questions should arise and which should make them known to the general public, always with due prudence, but also with that pinch of resourcefulness and nonconformity that should be part of their profession. This, at least, if we start from the assumption that we currently live in a free and democratic society, where all research and all scientific theories can find citizenship, unless they can be falsified, according to the well-known statement by Karl Popper. Popper maintained that a theory is scientific precisely if it can be falsified, that is, if at least one anomalous case can be found which confirms, for its irreducibility to a general scheme, the goodness of the theory itself; while a theory, such as that of Freudian psychoanalysis, cannot be falsified, which can never be falsified, in the sense that it does not admit any exception, because it offers a prompt and infallible explanation for any particular case, even the most anomalous one.

It seems to us that there is ample matter for reflection here on what we know and what we don't know, and yet we believe we know, in the context of science, especially when scientists, in the presence of a calamitous event , like a pandemic, of which they believe they have exclusive knowledge, then claim to exercise decisive action at a global political level, bypassing the normal parliamentary dialectic and silencing any objection on the level of information that is given to citizens. We had already seen it, even recently, for example when a certain debate started about the efficacy, the dangerousness and the compulsory nature of vaccines, especially those prescribed to minors. If only for this, that is, for the concrete effects on our life, it seems to us that it would be extremely useful to open a wide and free debate on the ends and limits of medical knowledge, as well as on the lawfulness of the criticisms and objections that may be addressed to it, not with a view to attacking science unreasonably, but in order to oversee the essential value of freedom of people, both in normal times and in exceptional times. Once the fundamental freedoms have been suspended on the pretext of a health emergency, in fact, it is difficult to know where it will end, and if the situation existing on the eve of that event will ever be restored, or if exceptional legislation will not become the new "normality" on the social body, as well as the gag imposed on information and culture."

patrix
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by patrix » Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:30 pm

An interview of Dr Lanka with English speech


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ximA-BbfKx4
https://youtu.be/ximA-BbfKx4

alovas1980
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2020 4:10 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by alovas1980 » Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:02 am

Antibodies, what are they?

I think if there are no harming, deadly viruses, then we should investigate what antibodies really are.
They say making antibodies is one of the ways our immune system fights the virus. But there are people who have been infected, became ill, recovered, but have no antibodies. So not having antibodies doesn’t mean not contacting the virus. So even those tests will mean nothing.

So, what are antibodies really?

https://theconversation.com/antibody-te ... -it-134547
Antibody tests: to get a grip on coronavirus, we need to know who’s already had it.

When we get infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), one of the ways our immune system fights the virus is by making antibodies. These small molecules bind specifically to SARS-CoV-2 (and not other viruses or bacteria), and combat the infection, mainly by preventing the virus from entering our cells.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/a ... or-april-8
But how many people have raised neutralizing antibodies? That’s another key piece of data that we don’t really know yet. This new report from Fudan is worth thinking about, where they’ve analyzed 175 patients discharged from hospitals in Shanghai after coronavirus infection. Neutralizing antibodies appear about 10 to 15 days after the onset of disease (which sounds about right) and target three different regions of the “spike” protein on the virus. (Interestingly, these do not cross-react with the earlier SARS coronavirus spike protein). The total amount in the blood (the titer) varied quite a bit between individuals – notably, younger patients had far lower levels than older ones did, which raises the question of how immune they really are. In fact, ten of those young patients had no detectable neutralizing antibodies at all (!) and overall, about 30% of the entire cohort failed to develop a high antibody titer (although they had similar disease progression before their recovery).
This presumably means that other parts of the immune system played a greater role in clearing the virus, which is fine – except that those long-lasting antibodies and memory B cells are the key to staying immune. A lot of people are (understandably) talking about having some sort of “immunological passport” system to clear people for work, etc. before we are able to vaccinate the population, and these results may be telling us that that will be a complicated process, one that might not clear as many people as one would hope.
I think these things are relevant to any viruses, so I put it in the general discussion.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:48 pm

patrix,

Any thoughts about Chickenpox? I had chickenpox as a child and I definitely feel like it was something I caught from a friend. My cousins and I and our friends all passed it around, I feel like it was definitely contagious. Any possible theories or other explanations for this virus?

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by fbenario » Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:31 pm

... and in 2007 I suffered for two weeks from what the doctor told me was shingles, a viral infection. Any thoughts on what it might have been if it wasn't viral?

Seneca
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Seneca » Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:56 pm

Good questions. Shingles and chickenpox are claimed to be caused by the same virus (varicella zoster virus).

Do you remember what parts of your body were affected? Anonjedi2, were you being isolated from your friends and cousins because of it?

Here are some cases explained according to the German New Medicine:
https://www.newmedicineonline.com/shing ... icine/amp/
http://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/Dr ... 2040-e.pdf
https://www.germannewmedicine-au.com/in ... 1-shingles

patrix
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by patrix » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:10 am

Regarding contagious diseases which I'm through Lankas, Bechamps and others work now are convinced are unexisting,

The skin (and so called viruses too) helps the body detoxify. Diseases are in essence symptoms of detoxification and malnutrition.

As for child diseases like the measles, I don't know. Maybe it's beneficial that children do this particular detox that is probably just a natural stage in human development at the same time in a group? We get sick (detox) more during the winter months. Probably because it's a good time. In the summer we're supposed to hunt for food.

What I do know is that Contagion remains an unproven hypothesis.

Leprosy, syphilis and smallpox that was common in the past (And they still exist. They've only been rebranded as for example cancer, heart disease, arthritis or dementia) were as I see it a result of bad living conditions. People had less access to fresh water, nutritional food, hygiene and sanitation. Contagion has never been the real cause of any disease.

Today's diseases are, in my humble opinion, almost exclusively a result of "bad" medicine and nutrition in order to create a profitable industry and to make the masses easier to control.

Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution - Clay Shirky

rusty
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:09 am

patrix wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:10 am
What I do know is that Contagion remains an unproven hypothesis.
I'm not sure this is actually true. The only unproven thing is how it works, it's unproven that there are certain "viruses" and "bacteria" which you can extract from one person and transfer to another person who will then contract the same disease. But as far a I know (I read something about this in the past, but don't know where that information can be found now), there are reliable statistics about how much the contact with infected persons will increase the risk to get that same disease. And for some (!) diseases, such as chickenpox, this contact to an infected person statistically is the most important factor. As far as chickenpox is concerned, I can attest to this from several personal experiences. It's simply not true, as Lanka claims, that only some schoolboys from the same class get sick because they are missing their beloved teacher. They pass it on to their friends and siblings, and the incubation period is almost precisely 14 days in most cases.

My personal view on this is, that theses diseases are innate programs which can be triggered for several reasons, but especially if you get in contact with someone who is already running that program. This is on a subconscious, emotional level, if you "tune in" to that person. Children are "tuning in" to their friends and siblings easily all the time. They associate and try to imitate and act collectively. I don't have better words to describe it.

Many years ago I read an interesting article in a magazine. It was about an island in the arctic ocean, which is isolated for many months every year in winter. The population is almost free from disease during that time. But from the moment the first ship arrives in spring, many people will get sick. Epidemiologists thought that this was the perfect place to study contagion and "infection chains". To their very surprise, the persons who got sick first did not have any contact with that ship at all. I don't remember many more details, but all in all they could not confirm any of their theories about how contagion works.

Altair
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:06 am

In Spain, in 1981, there were some tens of thousands of cases of an "atypical pneumonia". Initially the authorities attributed it to, of course, a virus and indeed the symptoms and distribution were "epidemic-like". Until some weeks later the real culprit was found: industrial seed oil that had been diverted to human comsumption and sold as olive oil. You can google for "toxic oil syndrome", but here are some links to the wikipedia that for what I remember, are reasonable correct. Spanish version is more complete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfermeda ... o_de_colza

rusty
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by rusty » Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:37 pm

alovas1980 wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:02 am
So, what are antibodies really?
...
I think these things are relevant to any viruses, so I put it in the general discussion.
Thanks for bringing this up, alovas. We know that antibodies are the ONLY way to claim a vaccine "works". To me it seems that these proteins are at least partially what we are told: They neutralize other proteins by binding to them. If you combine "foreign" proteins with toxic substances (such as aluminium hydroxide) in a vaccine you may well be able to trick the body into producing these "antibody" proteins in order to get rid of the unwanted "toxic" proteins.

After an "infection" like measles there are also life-long elevated levels of (more or less) specific antibodies. It may well be that the virus hypothesis is at least partially true in this point: These proteins are part of the innate disease program. Maybe they are actually there to stop the propagation of the exosomes ("viral particles") produced by the cells which keep the program running. Maybe they are part of the cell repair process.

So there may be some truth in the claim that by producing those "antibodies" artificially beforehand by some kind of vaccine you can prevent the body from running the program in full speed. The program is hindered, runs differently, less intense or something like that, because the typical exosomes which are needed in the process are being hampered with. In any case, many people agree that running these disease programs in their original form is the most beneficial way.

In the corona case, our beloved German expert Mr. Drosten said something along the line of "antibody tests are useless, because you can't tell to which type of Corona virus the antibodies belong", at least the test may cross-react with antibodies for other C.-viruses. Currently those viruses are only distinguished by their RNA. I'm not sure if they claim there are significant differences in the "envelope" or "spike" proteins. It seems that this is a major problem we need to be aware of when they claim they have an antibody test or even a vaccine.

Altair
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Mon Apr 13, 2020 2:46 pm

Yet another interesting fact: The CoV RNA contains just 30.000 bases (the "bricks" that make the RNA chain) (https://www.sciencealert.com/genome-ana ... e-combined), while just a single human chromosome has 249 million.
So viruses should be deceptingly simple particles, yet their 30.000 bases are able to bind with the much more complex genome of a dividing human cell and alter its processes so that proteins and lipids that make the virus are produced instead. Even more, those fragments are able to assemble within the still living cell to form new viruses.
Just by running some probability calculations, the odds of such thing happening are infinitesimal.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Mon Apr 13, 2020 6:03 pm

Altair wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 2:46 pm
The CoV RNA contains just 30.000 bases (the "bricks" that make the RNA chain) while just a single human chromosome has 249 million.
I don´t get the reasoning here. It seems like saying that changing an item in the setup of your operating system from Y to N shouldn´t make much of a difference in how the machine runs because it involves just a couple of bits of information. Or is this a bad analogy?

Altair
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by Altair » Mon Apr 13, 2020 6:18 pm

Maybe it was not quite right after I did some research. That reasoning applies only to retrovirus as HIV, which "insert" their RNA into the host cell's DNA. That would be akin to randomly matching a key with a lock having billions of possible combinations.
"Normal" virus supposedly are simpler in that their genetic material just gets into the cell and lets their enzimes do the work of replicating the virus building blocks. A simpler mechanism, but still would require a lot of luck.

patrix
Member
Posts: 588
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE ORIGINS OF THE "VIRUS" IDEA

Unread post by patrix » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:54 pm

rusty wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:09 am
patrix wrote:
Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:10 am
What I do know is that Contagion remains an unproven hypothesis.
I'm not sure this is actually true. The only unproven thing is how it works, it's unproven that there are certain "viruses" and "bacteria" which you can extract from one person and transfer to another person who will then contract the same disease.
It's true that groups living in the same environment often display the same type of disease and perhaps some types like chickenpox can develop just by being in the vicinity of others with the same disease. But that could be like the spark that sets dry grass on fire. I think it usually has to do with them drinking the same contaminated water, being bitten by the same bed bugs or having similarly bad hygiene or nutrition. Or in present day having the same vaccines or eating as current nutritional advice stipulates.

When I say Contagion is unproven, I refer to demonstrating that disease can spread according to the Koch postulates. A particle that is not a parasite is isolated (usually called bacteria or virus), cultivated and a host is infected. Then blood or tissue is taken from this host, the same particles are identified, isolated and cultivated and a second host is infected and develops the same disease. This has never been done successfully, yet this is dogma in current medicine.

Post Reply