Dr. Stefan Lanka (Rewritten from Translation by Tracey Northern)
The people of our cultural system are taught something that is no longer questioned today and is regarded as fact—that biological life came into being by chance from molecules colliding
and interacting with each other. These molecules are presumed to have been created by atoms accidentally colliding with each other, which in turn are said to have been created out of nothing by a Big Bang. It is assumed that within a sphere of water said to be held together by a shell of fats and proteins, many molecules with certain properties came together in the distant past and the interactions of the molecules (called metabolism) would maintain and multiply this sphere.
Despite all the assurances, pictures and schematic drawings in the textbooks, this presumed model of a cell bears no resemblance to reality. They claim that all life arose by chance from a simple primordial cell. After death, they claim that nothing else remains except molecules, which also decay back into atoms. Only those molecules that enter a cell are said to be living; everything else is dead and cold, and even space is empty, all lacking any life force or possibilities of independent interaction. Life, it is assumed, only developed into more complex organisms such as trees or humans because some accumulations of cells (so-called living beings) are stronger and more sophisticated so reproducing more effectively over others. If you look at the power and economic structures throughout the development of our cultural system up to the present day, it is obvious that respective attitude towards life and the view of “experts” continues to shape our concept of biological life.
Perhaps the most essential cause of this one-dimensional and dangerous world view is the rational mind where it is considered absolute and any insights generated from it are not to be questioned. When rationality rules and is not challenged other available tools are ignored in approaching the phenomena of life. In order to help us understand and face this challenge, Jochen Schamal wrote a basic introduction in his article “Mathematics and Reason” in issue 3/2020 of w+, in which he identifies the core fundamental challenge facing human beings. If the mind is used as an aid to humankind, everything is fine; if it is used absolutely, we automatically end up in self-perpetuating good versus evil paradigms as with “Corona,” in manifest wars and in many other areas of life. The undoubted effects of these good vs. evil patterns are interpreted as proof of the existence of an active principle of evil.
If we look at life “objectively” in the positive sense of the word, we see only creative processes of cooperation, of symbiosis, expressing and increasing a “joie de vivre” (joy of life) as the driving force of life. Even in the triggering of the processes that we mistakenly think of as diseases and malignancy, we find only helpful mechanisms and processes if we observe them objectively. Events or perceptions that are threatening or perceived as life-threatening have been identified as the triggers. After these processes are triggered, the relevant bodily functions, but also processes in the psyche, perception and behavior, magnify or change in order to escape the threat or increase the chance of survival. Where relevant, tissues are built up or broken down to aid survival.
In the recovery process, which starts instantaneously as soon as the triggering event is resolved or the relationship to it can be put into perspective, the body tries to restore its original form by breaking down or building it up again. Complications can arise if one or more triggers had a long and intensive effect, overlapped with other triggers, or new triggers were added through diagnostic shocks or resulting life circumstances. In these cases the healing and its known processes are made more difficult. Healing is also impeded if the triggering events are mentally and psychologically clung to and if deficiencies and poisoning are at work. In this issue of w+ we present the book UNIVERSAL BIOLOGY, which introduces this point of view. These insights were discovered by the physician Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer from 1981 onwards through very precise observations. Unfortunately, Dr. Hamer himself stood in the way of the dissemination of his constructive medical discoveries due to his own unobjective polemics.
Dr. Hamer thus significantly developed the previously psychosomatic science, which had its peak in Germany in 1977 but lost its way in material attempts at interpretation. By individualizing the observations, detached from biochemical and genetic attempts at interpretation, and by discovering specific signals in the brain—specific to each physical and mental triggering process, healing and healing crises—his view became scientific. His observations and the explanations derived from them are verifiable and comprehensible, the processes are predictable, so that accurate diagnoses, causal therapy and effective prophylaxis become possible. Most importantly, this meant that the “death sentences” called “incurable” and “malignant” could be replaced with understanding, thus making them lose their destructive effects.
It is understandable that people who only perceive established and physical explanations of life, health, illness, recovery and old age as true will have difficulty with this view. The same applies to people who base their self-confidence and identity on their learned view or who derive their livelihood from it. In her article “What You and Others Can Learn from Corona” in this issue of w+, Ursula Stoll shows why people react aggressively when confronted with an alternative view and what you can do not only to avoid this but to awaken genuine interest in changing their view. This is absolutely essential. We will only get out of the circular reasoning that led to the Corona crisis if a large majority of people open up to a better understanding and leave their destructive ideas and the resulting mechanisms behind. From this perspective, Corona can be an opportunity for all and a turning point towards a leap in humanity’s development. It is unlikely and perhaps even dangerous if these new insights, which challenge the old view and the industries attached to it, are dictated “from above.”
The Virus as a Disease Agent
Disease, pain, even old age and death of the body are seen in a purely material world view as defects to be fought. Promises of cures and eternal life are regularly touted, which the “grateful population” (Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy 1956) fund with increasing sums of money. Since 1858, it has been believed that all life arises from a cell as a result of purely material processes. This also includes all diseases, since the cell is said to produce disease-causing products, “disease venoms” (in Latin, viruses). Until 1951, the idea of a virus was defined as a pathogenic agent, a toxic protein, a toxin. In the years before, some scientists doing actual science checked their assumptions by control experiments. In doing so, they found two things: the decomposition of completely healthy tissues and organs produces the same proteins as the decomposition of “diseased” material, which was misinterpreted as viruses. Furthermore animal testing methods caused the symptoms of the “diseases” rather than the proteins misinterpreted as viruses that were blamed as the triggers.
Few doctors and only very attentive readers of professional journals noticed that science, as it had often been in the past, had no fixed idea of what viruses actually are. The idea of viruses has always been used for this purpose: a failed attempt to explain phenomena that cannot be explained within their respective worldview. Since the invention and application of alleged virus testing procedures, the inherent mechanism for generating fear has been greatly accelerated. This creation of fear is becoming much more effective globally because of the industrialization of the detection techniques and because of the economically-induced synchronization of “information.” The current result: a self-imposed blockade of the industrialized countries and their population through insane lockdowns, which are justified pseudo-rationally, i.e., pseudo-scientifically. It hasn’t yet become apparent or acknowledged that a purely rational approach to the phenomenon of life, excluding compassion and other perceptions, becomes a good vs. bad religion itself that seeks good, but creates evil in the process. The use of absolutes pertaining to life, illness and recovery is dangerous and leads to deadly consequences, even within the Hamer system of knowledge, if it is set in absolute terms and viewed in isolation, because we, as participants in life, lack an overview of the whole.
The pure materialistic cell theory of life introduced extremely unscientifically in 1858 quickly became the global basis of biology and medicine, a restricted view of the phenomena of life, a dangerous forced logic resulting in a forceful reaction. If I explain life purely materialistically, the triggers of age, deviations from normality (= diseases), the simultaneous or clustered occurrence of symptoms can and will be interpreted only as material defects and blamed on assumed flying disease agents. Within this idea disease processes and disease carriers have to be fought and suppressed. Notions of antibiosis, antibiotics, radiation, chemotherapy and isolation were therefore invented for this purpose. In 1976, Ivan Illich showed in his book MEDICAL NEMESIS that medicine is also subject to the pressures of profiteering and therefore forces those involved to exaggerate. For this reason alone, medicine has automatically, insidiously and without our noticing, become more and more dangerous in many areas. This compulsion to exaggeration thereby makes the false belief in viruses more and more dangerous.
The false hypothesis of the cell revived the (wrong) theory of the virus (previously abandoned) and ignited the emergence not only of the infection and immune and gene theories, but also the dominant basis of our cancer “medicine.” Whoever regards cancer as error, arbitrariness or self-destruction in nature, believes in wandering evil and the idea of metastases, therefore also believing in flying metastases, aka “viruses.” Here the circle closes. Education and information about “Corona,” in which these historical crimes are not mentioned, automatically strengthens these foundations and misconceptions, which are the actual cause of “Corona.”
This materialistic view of life results in another deeper, coercive logic, namely that of material heredity (genetics). Today science assumes that only material interactions exist; all other
explanations are unscientific and idiotic. This way of thinking led to a constructional and functional theory of life. One that contains instructions on how the alleged cell produces an organism with the help of its constituent molecules and the energetic currents gathered in it. Until 1951 the prevailing public opinion claimed that proteins carry the construction and functional plan of life. It was believed that proteins were the carriers of a hereditary substance. Within this imaginary world a hereditary substance MUST be claimed to be present in order to explain the origin of organisms from a cell. So the claimed toxic proteins (the pre-1951 definition of viruses) were attributed with the property of carrying the blueprint to reproduce
themselves inside of the theoretical toxic protein.
The Change of Ideas in Virology
Since 1952, when the idea that the hereditary substance is the material found in the nuclei of tissues and cells finally prevailed, there was a change of ideas, a so-called paradigm shift with regards to viruses. Since this paradigm shift, viruses were and are claimed to be traveling genetic elements, which, after entering the cell force it to reproduce the virus. In this assumed multiplication, the cells are supposed to be damaged, thereby causing diseases. The class of molecules considered to be hereditary since 1952 are known as nucleic acids because they behave like a weak acid in aqueous solution and are mainly found in the center of the nucleus. Until the year 2000, it was believed that segments could be found of these molecules, some of which are very long, that would carry the blueprint for the construction and function of life. Genes were described as the smallest unit of the hereditary substance, and they were thought to carry information about how individual proteins are constructed. However, results obtained experimentally in biochemical genetics disproved all previous assumptions. In view of these results, no scientist today is able to formulate a tenable definition of a gene that has not been disproved long ago.
In each nucleus the composition of the nucleic acids is constantly changing and for about 90% of our proteins no “genetic templates” can be found which could be called genes. The nucleic
acid probably serves primarily as an energy releaser and only secondarily as a metabolic resonator and stabilizer. With the exception of some researchers, almost all employed biologists
and physicians cling to the idea of a hereditary substance despite the known refutations because they simply have no other theory and their imagination suffers under pressure to conform and career anxiety. For this reason virology should also have waved goodbye to all previous assumptions about material heredity, for the second time long ago because the genetic theory underlying today’s virology turns out to be a misinterpretation.
A virus was defined as a non-living pathogen consisting of a piece of dangerous hereditary substance made up of several genes, which can be found in an ‘envelope’ or can be completely
naked. The assumption is that this strand of genetic material enters a cell, the viral genetic material takes control of the cell and forces it to reproduce the virus, damaging or even killing first the cell and eventually the whole organism. It is thought that after multiplying, the virus leaves the damaged organism to damage other organisms. This theory is destroyed by the refutation of cell theory, since life is mainly organized in interconnected tissues and there being very few structures that can be really called cells*. Virus theory is destroyed by the refutation of genetics. Virus theory is also refuted by an improved understanding of (new) biology and the discovery of those symbiotic processes in “disease”—healing and the healing crises’ which confirm through observations that existentially long-lasting events or perceptions trigger the potentially multiphasic processes which have hitherto been misinterpreted as different diseases. Knowledge of biology refutes virology. In real life there is no principle of an evil that merely takes yet leaves nothing.
Refutation of the Whole of Virology Easily Recognizable by Everyone
Virology claims to isolate viruses in the laboratory and from these isolated particles, claims to find the genetic material to determine their structure. In no published claim of isolation of a virus is there a description of an actual structure that has been isolated. On the contrary, experimentally produced death of tissues in the laboratory is misinterpreted as the effect of viruses because it is assumed that the tissues die because supposedly infected body fluids are added. In reality, the tissues die because they are no longer nourished and are killed by toxic antibiotics. Never, except for the measles virus trial, have any control experiments been carried out that would disprove the virus assumption, because the tissues always die from starvation and poisoning without the need to add additional supposedly infected material. On the basis of a single publication from 1954, the decayed tissue is assumed to transform into viruses when it dies. In this publication, it is emphasized several times that the assumption of tissue death due to a virus and the assumed transformation of the tissues into viruses is only speculation that would have to be proven or disproven in the future. It was only through the subsequent Nobel Prize for the first author, John Franklin Enders, for an earlier speculation within the old, protein-toxin virology, that this tissue-to-virus conversion idea became a supposed scientific fact and the sole basis of this new “genetic virology.”
The model for the new virology came from the bacteriologist John Franklin Enders—the discovery of tiny structures called phages that are only visible under an electron microscope, transformations from highly inbred, i.e., incestuous, bacteria caused by their metabolism breaking down. This transformation is not destructive, but a metamorphosis, similar to how bacteria when the terrain becomes hostile morph into permanent forms, the spores. These are also tiny, much smaller than bacteria. Spores can change back into bacteria when living conditions improve again. Phages, on the other hand, donate their nucleic acid to other organisms, which they are helping to survive/adapt not trying to kill or harm. Phages are nevertheless regarded as the “viruses” of bacteria, although phages are never able to damage or kill naturally occurring bacteria or freshly isolated bacteria. It is very likely that bacteria will develop again from phages if the correct environment is provided. I have isolated and studied a phage-like structure from the sea, one that algae produce especially when their living conditions are no longer optimal. Phages formed during the transformation of a specific, highly inbred, i.e., an incestuous bacterial species, always have the same structure, the same size, the same composition and always an equally long and equally assembled nucleic acid. The nucleic acid, which always has the same length and composition, became the model for the new virus theory, the gene-virus theory, in which a virus is a piece of enveloped or naked genetic material of a certain length and composition. Phages can be isolated quite easily and their nucleic acid extracted, which always has the same composition. In the case of “genetic viruses” this is never true: no nucleic acid is ever taken from the few structures that can be visualized under the electron microscope and passed off as viruses. The nucleic acid is always extracted from the fluids in which the dying tissues were located. Crucially, a whole nucleic acid has never been found that has the length and composition of those schematic drawings and descriptions of nucleic acids that virologists pass off as the genetic strand or genome of their respective viruses.
The Alignment, the Easily Recognizable & Essential Refutation of All Viral Assumptions
Any interested layman will find, in every claim of existence or isolation of disease-causing viruses, that a length of nucleic acid is theoretically constructed from very short pieces of nucleic acid released when tissues die, which is then passed off as viral nucleic acid deceiving both the scientist and everyone else. This laborious composition of the assumed viral nucleic acid, which can only be accomplished with fast computers, was much more cumbersome when done by hand at the beginning of gene virology, is called alignment. Every layman can recognize from the word alignment that a long, supposedly viral nucleic acid was only ever constructed
theoretically. No one ever claimed that an even remotely complete nucleic acid has been extracted from a (viral) structure or even from an “infected” liquid, the determination of whose molecular sequence would correspond to the whole. Only theoretically constructed nucleic acid.
Here the effective coercive logic to which virologists have been subject since 1954 becomes apparent because the assumption was made that tissues could also transform into viruses
when they die, just like very specific incestuously created bacteria do when they transform into phages, those helpful structures that are misinterpreted as viruses of bacteria. Since short pieces of nucleic acids, from which the postulated disease-causing viruses with the mentally constructed viral hereditary strands are found in every living being, all humans and animals can test “positive,” depending on the quantity and location of the sample to be tested. The bigger the sample tested, the more positive results are produced, although such a test result does not and cannot have any significance for either health or disease.
In the case of Corona, it is particularly easy to see how virologists deceived themselves and others, which in this case escalated into global hysteria and the Corona crisis through the actions of a German virologist Prof. Christian Drosten. In an attempt to get a grip on the panic of a new outbreak of SARS triggered by a hysterical ophthalmologist, the virologists of the Chinese government theoretically constructed a nucleic acid strand in the record time of one week by means of computer programs, which they said was almost identical to harmless and difficult-to-transmit bat viruses. They used only nucleic acids taken from the fluid of a bronchial wash obtained from a person who died of pneumonia. They did not use “cell cultures” in the laboratory supposedly infected in order to harvest the presumed virus from them as is common practice, nor did they claim to have obtained this nucleic acid from an isolated structure.
It is likely that the Chinese virologists theoretically constructed the nucleic acid of a “harmless”
virus: in order to dampen the wave of fear triggered by the ophthalmologist of a possible new outbreak of a dangerous coronavirus SARS epidemic which could result in the immediate overload of hospitals. Prof. Drosten, on the other hand, did not wait for the Chinese scientists to publish their final composition of a nucleic acid on 24.1.2020 before developing a test procedure to detect this allegedly new viral nucleic acid using the PCR. In order to develop his test procedure, he selected completely different nucleic acids, which he knew to be present in every human being, even before the preliminary data on the alleged new viral gene sequence from China was published on 10 January 2020. The pieces of nucleic acids he selected, which do not come from the (constructed) genome strand of the Chinese virus, are the basis of the PCR test procedure.
The biochemicals to detect the pieces of nucleic acids selected by Prof. Drosten by means of PCR—which do not originate from the Chinese virus model—were sent free of charge on 11.1.2020, “for humanitarian reasons,” to precisely those places where it was known that returnees from Wuhan were being tested. Positive test results were thus obtained from travelers from Wuhan, which were presented to the public from 20.1.2020 as proof of human-to-human transmission of the alleged new virus. The Chinese government had to bow to public pressure to go along with a new epidemic because of this apparent evidence, although all of the 49 people in Wuhan with pneumonia of unknown origin were proven not to have infected family members, friends or hospital staff with whom they were in close contact.
Summarizing the Essentials to Understand, End & Learn from Corona
There are no disease-causing viruses and, with knowledge of real biology, they cannot exist. Viruses are only constructed mentally by putting together very short pieces of nucleic acids, purely theoretically, into long pieces. These long mental constructs, which do not exist in reality and have never been discovered, are passed off as viruses. the process of mentally stringing together very short pieces of nucleic acid into a theoretical and long nucleic acid is called alignment. Since short pieces of nucleic acids, of which viruses are thought to be composed, are released during all inflammatory processes, tissue formation, degradation and death, it is clear that all people who experience inflammatory processes, tissue formation, degradation or death and from whom tissues and fluids are collected for testing will test “positive” with the nucleic acid detection technique—PCR. Similarly, people automatically test positive if, when tested by swabbing, any of these factors are present:
a.) too many mucous membranes are damaged,
b.) there is hemorrhaging as a result,
c.) the very sensitive olfactory bulb, a part of the brain, is mechanically injured in the nasal cavity, or
d.) simply a very large volume of sample is taken, because in the body, even in every natural body of water and in all seas, an astonishingly intensive build-up and degradation of nucleic acids of all kinds is constantly taking place. Among them are always sequences from which the original genetic strand of the virus was mentally constructed. The PCR virus test only detects very short nucleic acids that are claimed to be part of a virus. The test procedure to detect the alleged new Corona virus was developed by Prof. Christian Drosten even before the nucleic acid of the alleged new Corona virus was “decoded.” The Chinese virologists who had mentally constructed the nucleic acid of the alleged new virus using alignment, claimed that it was never proven that this virus had the potential to produce diseases. They assumed that the new virus was very similar to harmless and difficult-to-transmit viruses in animals. The “positive” results of Prof. Drosten’s PCR test were used to justify the claim that the new virus was “definitely” detected and that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission. These rash actions of Prof. Drosten had the effect of escalating a local SARS hysteria in Wuhan (triggered by an ophthalmologist) into a global Corona crisis.
* For further information on the refutation of traditional cell theory, see previous articles in wissenschafftplus.de.
Taken from the original translation of WISSEnSCHAFFtPLUS magazin 03/2020 · Auszug
“The Virus Misconception Part III, Corona Simple & Understandable” by Dr. Stefan Lanka
and rewritten. Original translation here: https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-3.pdf
This translated article, republished with permission, was originally published here.
Copyright © Stefan Lanka and Tracey Northern. All Rights Reserved.