How to recognize "insufficient" publications and false virus images?

With this article I would like to give the opportunity to unmask publications that claim that a new type of virus has been discovered. Or who present a picture of viruses which is alleged to be a novel virus. 

Everyone should be able to read and understand these scientific studies on their own with some training. Everyone can easily find out by means of a few characteristics whether a submitted virus picture can be genuine, i.e. whether it is perhaps missing important characteristics or even appears "strange". In order to help you in the future to assess more quickly whether this is really a work that meets the necessary and obligatory criteria for scientific work, I will explain a few facts here as support.

None of the EM-images (electron microscope) of SARS-CoV-2 (1) shows a virus in pure culture, this fact alone leads to the disregard of Koch's 1st postulate. Also all publications on the measles virus show no scientific evidence of a disease-causing virus. (2)|(3) The same is true for SARS-CoV-1 (2003). Virology had given up on itself for good reasons in 1951 when they were still carrying out the necessary control experiments, which are no longer done today. Why not, oh yes, it would be too expensive according to the expert Prof. Podbielski, even though the pharmaceutical industry turns over billions, but who am I telling?

In fact, there is not a single publication in the entire scientific literature that claims that even the 1st Koch postulate is fulfilled for viruses in medicine. There is not a single publication in the entire scientific literature which claims that viruses in medicine fulfill even the first Koch postulate, i.e. that the viruses responsible for certain diseases have been seen and isolated in people with certain diseases. Nevertheless, this is claimed by the responsible authorities and by the virologists towards the public. 

As a reminder, what were the four Koch postulates:

• The claimed pathogen (the virus) must have been detected and isolated ( singled out) in a "sick" individual.  
• This isolated pathogen must then be able to be bred or multiplied in pure form.
• The pathogen that is now bred and multiplied must cause exactly the same symptoms in a "healthy" individual as those observed in a "sick" individual. 
• The pathogen is only detected and classified as a pathogen if it is detected again in the "newly infected" individual and in accordance with the 1st postulate. Both "pathogens" must be identical.

The virus isolation

In a virus isolation the [claimed] viruses must be separated from the cells, body fluids or cell cultures and freed from all impurities. This is the first step in virus isolation and is very simple for two reasons.

1. In contrast to living cells, viruses always have the same size and shape depending on the species. They can be easily separated from other cellular components based on their density and/or sedimentation properties and can therefore be safely isolated.
2. For a long time now, suitable liquids have been available, such as silicon pellets, which do not exert osmotic forces and leave the virus particles intact in the isolation.

For visualization, the isolated viruses are photographed under an electron microscope and must then look exactly like the particles observed in the cells, body fluids or cell cultures. This is because particles are often found that have a certain similarity to viruses but are of a different nature.

Furthermore, the proteins of the virus, which form the shell and surround the genetic substance, must be separated according to their size in the electric field and photographed. The same applies to the genetic substance of viruses, which consists of RNA or DNA, the proteins are separated and can be photographed.

If these three first steps are documented and the virus under investigation actually differs from other known viruses in the composition of its components and genetic substance, it can be called a novel virus.

Question: It does not matter where the virus was isolated from, body fluids, cell cultures, plasma or serum. So you can't tell where an isolated virus that has been freed of all impurities comes from?

Answer: Correct.

But how do you proceed with the alleged RNA viruses?

Only cell-own RNA molecules from the supernatant of cell cultures are used for the construction, yes, you heard right, a construction, an artificial model of the viral genome. The isolation of a viral structure and from it the viral genome does not take place. The construction of the genome for SARS-CoV-2, which is about 30,000 nucleotides long, is done using nucleotide fractions instead of a maximum length of 150 nucleotides.

So very short sequences are "isolated", which themselves do not allow any statement at all, just as if you would hold some crumbs of a whole cake in your hand. These very short sequences are only aligned with the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-1 from the year 2003, for example, and then assembled or calculated in the computer to form a complete "new" genome. 

However, if the number of short sequences available is not sufficient to construct a genome, the missing sequences are created biochemically or even freely invented.

Never before has anyone succeeded in isolating, let alone making visible, the complete nucleic acid of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 as a whole. These are all merely computer-generated models. 

Due to these circumstances, it must be clear to everyone that no one can prove the presence of a new - or, as is also claimed, "infectious" - pathogen. 

Since the people involved unfortunately suffer from the obsessive thinking that viruses must exist because the "prevailing opinion in biology/medicine" cannot offer any alternative explanations for the phenomena attributed to viruses, they do not notice their extremely unscientific actions and the self-deception and deception of others that goes along with it.

Actually, one would expect that every normally mortal scientist would be able to repeat the isolation in his own laboratory on the basis of a publication for the detection of a virus. Instead, the publications for the detection of mumps or measles virus do not even mention the steps for virus isolation or characterization. For the measles virus, the size specifications are between 120 and 1000 nanometers. Even here there seems to be no agreement. 

One can directly recognize the fact of the only conceptual construction of the "virus genome" (Complete genome) in this publication, in which the RKI was significantly involved: "Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany", to be found on the RKI website. (4)

Comment on the photos of viruses claimed to be isolated

When does a picture say nothing about its existence and can only be interpreted as unscientific or even attempted fraud.

• In the absence of a scientific publication which at least states and describes that a virus has been seen and how and from where the virus has been isolated. These publications for the viruses claimed by medicine do not exist and can therefore not be cited.
• If photos are colored. This is the proof that designers were at work, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.
• For example, the so-called HIV, measles and smallpox virus pictures clearly show, as the captions themselves already say, that these are cells in which viruses are supposed to be present. So nothing was isolated.

(Alleged) Measle Viruses in Vero Cells

Color enhanced Transmission Electron Micrograph, of a cell containing (alleged) smallpox viruses.

T-lymphocytes (T-cell) infected with the (supposed) HIV virus

In the copies of the mumps and measles viruses, for example, there are only references to transmission experiments on apes (1934), the breeding and isolation of the viruses on the hatching egg (1945) and cell cultures (1954 and 1955), but no quotes of virus isolation can be found. Whereby in the publications of 1945, 1954 and 1955 not a single step of isolation and characterization is claimed and documented

Transmission electron microscopic (TEM), negative stain image, of (claimed) icosahedral-shaped polio virus particle.

The images of the isolated-looking polio viruses are artificial particles created by sucking an artificially produced mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. The lack of structural features of these particles becomes apparent when compared to the so-called polio viruses that are present in the cells. The deliberate deception becomes particularly obvious here. It should be noted that a biochemical characterization of these viruses, which are claimed to be isolated, has not been published anywhere.

This transmission electron micrographic image is (supposed) to show us a number of round, hepatitis-B virus (HBV) virions in the form of infective Dane particles.

The photo with the hepatitis B viruses does not show isolated structures but an agglutinate. By this the scientist understands clumped proteins from the blood, as they are typical for coagulation processes, for example. Typically, round and, depending on the condition of the blood sample, also crystalline structures are formed.

Go on a search and try to find a publication that shows an isolated uptake for hepatitis B shown in pure culture! 

(Alleged) electron microscopic image of the 1976 isolate of Ebola virus. (Isolate does not mean here isolation in the sense of the 4 Koch postulates.)

(So called) Influenza Virus particles

In the case of influenza, herpes, vaccinia, flu and Ebola viruses, often only a single particle is shown at a time, and no one claims that these are isolated particles and even less so, particles isolated from humans. These particles are cellular components or typical artifacts, i.e. spontaneously formed structures,

These examples are for illustrative purposes only and it can be said that this applies to all published so-called virus images. 

In summary, it must be said that these photos are a deliberate attempt to defraud by the authorities, researchers and medical professionals involved, when they claim that these structures are viruses, moreover isolated viruses. To what extent the participating journalists and textbook authors are involved in this fraud intentionally or only through gross negligence is beyond my knowledge. Every person who begins to research inevitably very quickly comes across corresponding statements and indications in medical literature that the 1st Koch postulate cannot be fulfilled in the case of viruses (e.g. Großgebauer: „Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben“, 1997, Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft - "A brief history of microbes, 1997", Publisher for applied science). No responsible person who even checked here could have been unaware of this.

The extracts from textbooks using the example of Porstmann, Collier & John, Fields et al. etc., which are repeatedly cited by medical institutes, do not answer the question of virus detection:

A textbook is not a scientific work, but serves, among other things, to find the literature references about the scientific work whose findings are reported in the textbook.

References to literature references to scientific publications on the isolation and characterization of the said viruses are missing in these textbooks.

Those "viruses" (the word "virus" has the wrong connotation) that exist and have been proven, about whose isolation and characterization there are scientific publications, e.g. the viruses of the bacteria (called phages) and the Ectocarpus siliculosus "virus", which Stefan Lanka isolated and published, are in fact nowhere presented as causing disease.

It is obvious that in order to further maintain the dogma of the transmissibility of diseases by microbes, which was developed by Robert Koch in 1882 on a political mandate - by means of scientific fraud - viruses had to be invented. For it became clear that bacteria can only produce dangerous poisons in corpses, i.e. under oxygen exclusion. Therefore, pathogens invisible under the light microscope had to be postulated, which also produce toxins in the living organism: And virus means poison. However, these have not been proven to date. 

Just because it is said that the virus has been isolated in a publication, this is by no means true. If one reads the publications, it becomes clear that the word isolation is misused by virologists and has nothing to do with real isolation.

Virologists kill tissue unnoticed in the laboratory

Virologists do not use the word "isolation" in the sense of the word isolation and become suspiciously nervous when asked about it. They understand "isolation" to mean the creation of an effect in the laboratory, which they also call

a) Infection.

b) Evidence of the presence of a virus.

c) Evidence of its multiplication.

d) Evidence of the destructive power of the assumed virus.

In reality, they kill unnoticed and unconsciously tissue and cells in the laboratory - by starvation and poisoning.

The explanation why you claim the isolation B, C and D at the same time as confirmed is the "cytopathic effect".

This result of many violent and insane steps is interpreted as central evidence for the "presence, isolation, multiplication etc. of the suspected virus. Those involved then claim that they have succeeded in cultivating the virus.

Further information can be found in the interview with Dr. Stefan Lanka - How dead are viruses actually? All claims of virus existence refuted (5)

In the measles case, the expert opinion (opinion no. 3) was submitted by Lanka, where the laboratory confirmed that this effect is caused by chemicals/antibiotics and not by a claimed virus. 

Also in the publication by Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42(1):75-85 it is described that the cytopathic effect is not measles-specific but is caused by other factors.

This is stated in the publication on p.80:

„cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called ‚foamy agents‘, which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys“

This sentence is remarkable as it points out the unspecificity of exactly those pathological changes that served as the starting point for the optical evidence of an infection in the first publication by Enders & Peebles.

The addition of antibiotics also leads to the formation of exosomes in dying tissue. It is known that exactly this formation cannot be distinguished from viruses

Another aspect that should be mentioned is that there is a scientific insight that the addition of antibiotics creates exosomes (RNA sequences) that were previously not present. 

This is confirmed on the German Wikipedia page for the entry exosome (vesicle).

Exosomes are vesicles of about 30 to 90 nm in size, which are released by a cell into the environment. They can be formed by lymph cells, platelets, mast cells, dendritic cells, nerve cells, astrocytes and tumor cells, among others. Exosomes are formed in a multi-stage process that includes a constriction of the cell membrane, a process known as endocytosis, and an exocytosis process. These vesicles contain, among other things, nucleic acids and proteins in varying compositions and serve as transport vehicles and for the ejection of cell components. In addition, they are used for cellular communication. Thus, exosomes may play a role in acquired immunity. But viruses, such as HI viruses, also use exosomes for transport and camouflage. Exosomes are currently being investigated as possible therapeutic options in the treatment of autoimmune diseases and cancer. The formation of exosomes can still be triggered by certain substances such as the antibiotic ciprofloxacin. (6)

According to scientists, exosomes cannot be distinguished from claimed viruses. (7) This fact alone forces the performance of negative controls, which is strangely enough repeatedly forgotten or deliberately ignored in all virus studies to this day. Already in 1951, virology gave up when the necessary control experiments were still being carried out. Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke from the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science explains this in his book „ZUR GESCHICHTE DER FRÜHEN VIRUSFORSCHUNG“ ("The history of early virus research"). (8)

This reading is so important because it shows how important control experiments are to recognize that one was wrong. It shows that until 1953 it was clear and known to every virologist and the scientific community that all components that had been interpreted as components of viruses until then, turned out to be components of dead tissues and cells through control experiments. This is why it is so important to keep insisting on the lack of control experiments in the publications presented.

Does the publication contain the necessary control experiments codified by the DFG (German Research Foundation) in 1998?

Since 1998, the rules for scientific work have been bindingly codified by the DFG. The RKI has to follow these rules! (9)

In Germany, since 1998, all scientists and institutions receiving state research funds are obliged to comply with this ingenious, logical and simple set of rules in their work and when preparing expert opinions. 

The following is central to any new method that is introduced and that is intended to produce scientific findings: 

"Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental setup are a central component of the scientific methodology in order to verify applied methods and to exclude disturbing factors." 

"Publications without documented performance of control experiments must not be presented as scientific."

The sole and only basis of all virology since 1953 is the assumption published by Prof. Enders in 1954 that the death of cells in the reagent could be proof of the action of viruses or that of unknown factors. Only the Nobel Prize at the end of 1954 turned these self-refuting speculations into a scientific fact: "It is viruses when cells die. Since he did not carry out any control experiments, Enders and all his successors to this day have not noticed that starvation and poisoning are the cause of the death of cells in the test tube and not suspected viruses. 

This fact is explained among others in the important article "The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses". (10)

Scientific rules and guidelines 

The rules and regulations all agree that scientific work is based on basic principles that are the same in all countries and in all scientific disciplines. Good scientific practice requires (the list is not complete)

A) To work "lege artis". The investigations are to be carried out in accordance with the latest state of research, which requires knowledge and exploitation of current literature, the application of appropriate methods and the latest findings. 

B) Honesty. It is the task of the scientist to consistently control and doubt results, while also presenting findings of others who question results and hypotheses. Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental set-up are a central part of Dr. Stefan Lanka's statement on the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski of 17.11.2014 in the trial Dr. Bardens/Dr. Lanka, Ravensburg District Court, Ref.: 4 O 346/13; prepared on 2.2.2015 4 of 58 scientific methodologies in order to verify applied methods and exclude confounding factors. 

C) Quality assurance as an important characteristic of scientific honesty. When results are published, methods, work steps and results must be described exactly, whereby a clear distinction must be made between reproduction of the findings and interpretation. Findings that reject one's own hypotheses and communicate findings and ideas of other scientists, as well as relevant publications of other authors and competitors must be cited appropriately.

Scientific misconduct results from violation of these three and other criteria, as well as misrepresentation by suppressing relevant evidence, sources and texts about unwanted results without disclosure. Co-responsibility for scientific misconduct arises from joint knowledge of falsifications by others, participation in the misconduct of others, co-authoring of falsified publications, gross neglect of supervisory duties, and others, whereby legal consequences must be drawn, especially in the case of crimes against life and bodily injury. 

What does that mean?

If the necessary control experiments are not available, the publication cannot and must not be described as scientific. It was precisely this misconduct that led and reinforced the misguided development within virology. One misinterpreted, among other things, processes during the death of tissue and cells in the reagent as the presence of viruses and did not notice this error. If the responsible persons had carried out the necessary control experiments, they would have noticed this immediately.

A good analysis of this problem can be read in the article "What is a "scientific fact"? A small case study: The "measles process" by Prof. Harald Walach. (11)

It is cruel animal experiments that lead to "similar" symptoms for the virologist in the best case!

It is common practice for virologists to keep trying to force symptoms. They use the cruelest animal experiments for this. Beginning with Louis Pasteur, who undertook disgusting cruelty to animals in order to prove his evidence of infection, which does not exist and which has been disproved several times. But even today, people still use strange animal experiments to claim infectivity. No matter whether with the help of chicken embryos or by cruel mistreatment of monkeys. 

In the former, a substance is injected directly into the egg, which itself leads either to symptoms or even to death. This does not seem very surprising, because if you inject foreign substances into a chicken embryo, you do not have to be a clairvoyant to predict a negative effect. One could just as well have used any liquid, it would have led to the same result. But as we have already learned, the important control experiments are not welcome ...

What about the monkeys? These are fixed while they are sedated with anesthetics. Tubes are then inserted into their lungs through their nose and mouth. Not only is this procedure completely unethical, but also the fact that the drug causes the symptoms that are attributed to an imaginary virus. But the good gentlemen don't care about this, after all, research funds must continue to flow.

By the way, here an attempt was made to prove the infectivity of SARS Cov 1 - and the monkeys did not show the typical, expected symptoms, such as coughing, but only the side effect of the anesthetic. Here, too, it is as clear as day - a control experiment is missing: In other words, how do monkeys behave when they are only anaesthetized and fixed, but are not exposed to the so-called virus, but to another substance?

This claimed proven infectivity of the virus now gives pharmaceutical companies the chance to develop a vaccine to protect the population from this deadly virus.

1. Influenza A virus isolation, culture and identification (12)

2. The Rotterdam Monkey Experiment (13)

Let us now summarize for the purpose of writing down the essential questions that must be answered by a scientific publication that detects a virus:

1. Were all Koch's postulates observed?
2. Was an alignment carried out, which is only a construct, i.e. a model of a virus
3. Were the necessary control experiments carried out, so that, among other things, it can be excluded that the cause of tissue death is not found in the experimental setup itself?
4. Were all criteria set by the German Research Foundation met?
5. Do the virus images really show structures that are present in isolated form and, above all, is a scientific study of the image of the virus given, in which the other criteria mentioned here have all been properly met?
6. A virus image alone without adherence to Koch's 3rd postulate cannot be claimed as pathogenic.
7. Is it the cruel animal experiments that in the "best" case lead to "similar" symptoms and by no means a claimed pathogenic virus?

If we now try to answer these questions for the so-called SARS COV 2 virus, we already fail to fulfill Koch's first postulate: There is NO single publication describing that a whole and intact virus, which is supposed to be infectious at the same time, could be isolated. 

Hans Tolzin suspended a prize money of 100,000 Euros for the proof of the existence of the virus - this has not been claimed by anyone so far, not even by Professor Drosten. I suspect he does not like the scientific criteria. (14)

Billions of deadly animal experiments and billions of human victims were and still are the consequence of the historical fraud of a Robert Koch and all those who intentionally and negligently participate in and support vaccination. Including those who meant well.

A small side note!

I repeat once again that Robert Koch and collaborators, Prof. Rush, Prof. Max von Pettenkofer, Prof. Virchow and others have shown by experiments and by following Henle-Koch's postulates that the transmission of bacteria, the suspected Contagium vivum, could never experimentally cause a disease, let alone the same disease. And so Robert Koch abolished the 3rd postulate of his teacher, the German anatomist Jakob Henle, so that in order to prove the assertion of disease production, i.e. the infectiousness of a bacterium, only the production of a "similar symptom" in animal experiments is sufficient to assert infectiousness (read in Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben).

So it is not surprising that Prof. Alfred Fischer writes in his book "Lectures on Bacteria" (1897!) in summary: "It goes without saying that, as with all infectious diseases, the unknown something of individual predisposition must be added to the introduction of bacteria".

In conclusion, it must be said that the submissions of publications on the existence and characterization of viruses dating from before 1970 must be considered a fraud, since it was not until the 1970s that biochemists developed the techniques to be able to prove the existence of viruses, isolate the viruses and then characterize the proteins and nucleic acids.

Every scientist, every physician and every person who seriously deals with this topic knows this.

Even the World Health Organization (WHO), which answered correctly in relation to the request for proof of the smallpox virus, knows this:

In 1971, when the WHO agreed on the criteria for detecting smallpox viruses, the biochemical detection methods were not yet fully developed. Biological criteria were agreed upon: THE POX MORPHOLOGY, THE CHORIOALLANTOIC MEMBRANE, THE DEVELOPING CHICKEN EMBRYO!

This means nothing else than the blotchy, blistery and dying of the said membrane, which is equated with the existence of the pox virus AND as a symptom of pox in animal experiments! This membrane is the outermost three-layered skin of the incubated hen's egg, which is attached to the shell skin and serves the embryo as a respiratory organ.

No further comment is necessary here.

Billions of deadly animal experiments and billions of human victims were and still are the consequence of the fraud of Robert Koch and all those who intentionally and negligently participate in and support vaccination. Including those who meant well.

Translated & adapted version - Original here

Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal

References:

(1) Leading Corona researchers admit that they have no scientific proof for the existence of a virus

(2) Bet that the alleged measles virus does not exist!

(3) The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses

(4) Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany

(5) How dead are viruses actually? All claims of virus existence refuted

(6) Exosom (Vesikel) - German Wikipedia entry.

(7) When is a virus an exosome?

(8) Frühgeschichte der Virologie“ (Early History of Virology), preprint 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999. (German only)

(9) Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice

(10) The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses

(11) What is a "scientific fact"? A small case study: The "measles process"

(12) Influenza A virus isolation, culture and identification

(13) Sars: Corona virus first stage (scroll down to The Rotterdam Monkey Experiment)

(14) 100 000 Euro cash for a serious corona virus proof