The Virus Misconceptiontranslated by Corona Investigative
Beginning and end of the corona crisis
by Dr. Stefan Lanka
The definition of SARS and corona or covid-19 states that atypical pneumonia is considered to be the clinical picture characterising the disease. If known pathogens can be detected in the case of pneumonia, the pneumonia is described as a typical, if not an atypical one. One of two decisive facts for SARS and the corona crisis is that at least 20-30% of all pneumonia is atypical. The causes of atypical pneumonia are clearly known and therefore must NOT be claimed as the cause of an unknown virus.
This fact is suppressed by infectiologists and virologists and is the basis of current fear and panic, because the impression is created among those affected, the public and politicians that atypical pneumonia would be particularly dangerous and more often fatal because there are still no drugs or vaccines for the allegedly novel disease.
From the time when a test procedure for the alleged new virus is offered, which, which is concealed by those involved, also tests healthy people "positively", the number of cases is increased automatically. At first, people with typical pneumonia are also included, then more and more people with other diseases. This is regarded as practical proof for the spread of the virus. Automatically the original disease "atypical pneumonia" adds more and more other diseases and this "syndrome" is passed off as "the new virus disease
The other decisive fact, not only for SARS and the corona crisis, is that virologists who claim that viruses cause disease suppress an openly lying situation for understandable reasons. The virus test procedure offered is a genetic detection method. The gene sequences they use for the detection test are not isolated from a virus. They isolate typical gene sequences that are released in increased amounts when tissue and cells die. These generally short gene sequences, components of the human metabolism, are the basis for further laboratory work. With the help of computer programs, virologists are only able to construct long genetic material strands from many short gene sequences. These are then output as real, viral DNA strands. This is the reason why positive test results are repeatedly obtained even in tested healthy individuals.
In order that these virologists do not disprove themselves, they disregard consequently two rules prescribed in science. The one is to consistently verify all claims yourself. The other is, all assumptions and methods used must be verified by means of controll tests. Would you run the control experiments they would find that ALL of the short gene sequences which only mentally link them together to form a viral genetic strand, from the human metabolism and not from the outside, from a claimed virus.
The momentum of the corona crisis was triggered by a message from a young ophthalmologist on 30.12.2019 on the Internet, which spread immediately and very quickly. He told friends that in his hospital several people were under quarantine, seven cases of SARS were confirmed, they should be careful and protect themselves. Prof. Christian Drosten of the Charité in Berlin heard about this, immediately started the development of test procedures for SARS viruses before it was even clear and could be made clear whether the report from China about SARS was true and proven, and especially before the Chinese virologists published their results.
The authoritative virologists of the Chinese Disease Control Commission (CCDC) published their results on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020. They report on the isolation of many short gene sequences, which, when strung together, could represent a genetic strand of a new type of virus. The authors expressly point out - and all other virologists involved to date - that the absolutely necessary experiments have not yet been carried out, which would make it possible to claim that this is indeed a genetic strand of a pathogenic virus. On the contrary, the Chinese virologists even explicitly point out that the constructed genetic strand bears up to 90% similarity to genetic strands of harmless and for decades known, main corona viruses in bats.
On 21.1.2020 (3 days before the first publication of the CCDC!) the WHO recommended all nations to use the test procedure developed by Prof. Drosten. By claiming that he had developed a reliable test procedure for the rapidly spreading virus in China, Prof. Drosten, disregarding the clearly defined rules of scientific work which are part of his employment contract, and by violating the laws of thought and logic of virology, has caused the increase and globalization of the Chinese epidemic panic.
1. Beginning of the Corona Crisis
When the young ophthalmologist Li Wenliang informed seven doctors in Wuhan via WhatsApp on 30.12.2019 that several people were quarantined in his hospital, seven cases of SARS had been confirmed, that they should be careful and protect themselves, he did not intend to cause a panic. If he had, he would have posted the announcement on the Internet and warned the public. One of the seven recipients of this private WhatsApp message published a "screenshot", i.e. a photo of the message, on the Internet without being aware of the possible consequences. Of course, this information spread very quickly within China and then also worldwide.
This communication triggered a wave of fear, panic and enquiries to Chinese health authorities and government due to the panic of a SARS crisis in 2003, which the World Health Organisation (WHO) classified as a "global threat" on 12.3.2003. As a result, the Government in Beijing sent a "rapid reaction force" consisting of epidemiologists and virologists from the Chinese Disease Control Center (CCDC) to Wuhan on 31 December 2019 to support the local health authorities and the surrounding Hubei Province. The aim was to check and verify the allegations about the outbreak of an epidemic. If an outbreak had indeed occurred, the situation should be adequately controlled.
In the first authoritative publication by the authors of the CCDC on the results of their research, "A New Coronavirus of Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019" (1), no accumulation of cases of atypical pneumonia ("patients with pneumonia of unknown cause") is reported. They report that the existing patients can be grouped into a "cluster", a group with common characteristics. The common feature was the more or less frequent visit of a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan. How small the group of patients with atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC of only four patients took smears and fluids of the lower respiratory tract in order to search for known and unknown pathogens.
In the meantime, the panic in Wuhan and the surrounding area increased extremely. Even the measures taken by the police, who asked the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang on 3.1.2020 to sign a declaration of discontinuance in writing, in order to commit himself not to spread any more information about a possible SARS outbreak, could not slow down the dangerously worsening dynamics of panic. On 10.1.2020 Wenliang, and shortly afterwards also his parents, developed the symptoms of pneumonia. Li Wenliang isolated himself because he was convinced that he had been infected with the SARS virus the day before in an au- gen patient. This also increased the panic.
The supervising doctors carried out a large number of different tests, all of which were negative. As his state of health deteriorated and more and more people showed public sympathy for his fate, the tests were continued until a first SARS test on 30.1.2020 was assessed as "positive". The disaster of the escalating SARS panic, which mutated into a global corona crisis, took its course.
Li Wenliang spread this result on the Internet with the following words: "Today nucleic acid testing came back with a positive result, the dust has settled, finally diagnosed."
This announcement increased the already existing panic. Everything got completely out of control when he published his signed cease-and-desist declaration of 3.1.2020 on the internet. This publication of his cease-and-desist declaration, which was dangerous for him, was and still is considered by all panicked people as proof that there is a new SARS epidemic, because a doctor, who is himself affected, continues to inform and warn the public despite the threat of penalties. The panic increased further because Li Wenliang's health deteriorated despite the intensive use of a variety of antibiotic substances, and the public regularly took part in this. The situation was on the verge of escalation because the reporting of his death was more than chaotic and contradictory. This was and still is the central reason why the Chinese and global public assumed that another SARS outbreak had occurred in Wuhan, which had been redefined as a new epidemic, a pandemic with a new Na- men, Covid-19.
2. The one, of two possible causes of fear of Li Wenliang
The fear of the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang is based on the events of 2003 in China, when western scientists claimed that an accumulation of atypical pneumonia had occurred in southern China. Two days after the mental creation of a genetic strand of the allegedly new virus (SARS-CoV-1), in which Prof. Drosten was significantly involved,(2) Prof. Drosten offered an alleged test procedure for this alleged virus.(3) Approximately 800 people with atypical pneumonia, i.e. pneumonia in which no known pathogens are detected, but who tested "positive" with Prof. Drosten's test, therefore died - possibly incorrectly and over-treated - with the diagnosis of SARS instead of "atypical pneumonia.
The basis that the fear of SARS was maintained and increased until 2019 is two publications in 2013 (4) and 2017 (5) which triggered speculation about the possibility of the appearance of new SARS corona viruses. The authors of both publications state that in healthy bats there is evidence for the existence of short gene sequences that can be interpreted as components of a virus. These short gene sequences would have similarities with those short gene sequences that were declared to be components of the alleged SARS corona virus-1 (SARS-CoV-1) in 2003. SARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which is another description of the symptoms of atypical pneumonia.
It is said about these intellectual (fictitious) genetic strands (converted into reality) that it is possible that they could also arise in reality and form a real virus. Such a virus, claimed in bats and other wild animals but still harmless, could jump to humans by bite, contact or consumption and become a deadly killer. In humans, this harmless virus could, through changes (mutations), turn into a SARS corona virus that is actually new and could cause a disease. Such an event and the resulting wave of diseases, such as atypical pneumonia, must be expected at any time.
To date, virologists have not been able to isolate a SARS virus from a patient, bat, other animal, or in the laboratory, nor have they been able to detect an intact and complete genetic strand of a SARS virus. The assumption of the virologists that there are in fact viral genetic strands that are constructed in the same way as genetic strands that are made up of short gene sequences could not be confirmed to date. Although the very simple standard techniques for determining the length of genetic sequences have been available for a long time, it has not been possible to prove the existence and presence of a complete genetic strand of a SARS virus in any other way.
The fears massively stirred up by such false allegations were the basis of the fears of the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, as well as other physicians and infectiologists not only in Wuhan. These allegations are the reason why the epidemiologists and virologists of the CCDC have been focused on finding similar gene sequences, which were defined as components of SARS corona viruses in 2003 (see the explanations below), since 31.12.2019.
3. The second of the possible causes of Li Wenliang's fear
The SARS and Corona crises started with the claim in the media that there is an accumulation of patients with atypical pneumonia. This allegation was never substantiated. It was only claimed that the atypical pneumonia that occurred could be explained by the assumption of the appearance of a new virus, because some of the people with atypical pneumonia had contact with animal markets. Around this, known facts described in the medical and scientific literature were suppressed. There are in fact several and wide spectra of non-infectious causes of atypical pneumonia. For several reasons, these atypical pneumonias end fatally more often than is the case with typical pneumonia.
The causes include inhalation of toxic fumes, solvents and substances. The ingress of food, drink or stomach contents into the lungs in the event of swallowing difficulties or unconsciousness can also cause extremely serious pneumonia (aspiration pneumonia). Water alone is sufficient if it enters the lungs of drowning persons to cause severe atypical pneumonia. A further cause is the recognised spectrum of immunological malfunctions, such as allergies and autoimmune reactions. It is also known that radiation triggers inflammation of the lungs in cancer, which cannot be distinguished from typical pneumonia. Congestive pneumonia is particularly well known in older people. These develop due to water retention (oedema), prolonged bedriddenness, heart and/or kidney weakness, which can lead to inadequate ventilation and blood circulation in the lungs, and as a direct consequence to inflammation of the lungs, i.e. atypical pneumonia.
Logically, a combination of otherwise underlying causes also causes atypical pneumonia. An atypical pneumonia can change very quickly into a typical one if a secondary colonization of the inflamed lung occurs. This is the reason why the percentage of atypical pneumonia is probably higher than the estimated 20-30%.
The investigations of the five people documented in the two publications relevant to the corona crisis, (6) did not investigate the possible presence or history, signs, mechanisms and effects of these known causes of atypical pneumonia. Virologists usually do not do this anyway, and the members of the CCDC were unable to do so even under the circumstances of panic. Excluding the mention of atypical pneumonia proves a serious medical malpractice and prevents correct treatment of patients. Those affected therefore run the risk of being mishandled with a cocktail of antibiotic substances rich in side-effects, which is capable of independently causing the death of patients, especially in the case of overdose. (7) It must be clear to all that extreme panic, especially in the case of breathing problems, can independently cause death. Panic can even be fatal in a very short time, not only in the case of cardiovascular problems.
The answer to the crucial question of whether a new virus has actually been detected or whether only endogenous, short pieces of genetic material are issued as components of a virus or are misinterpreted as such, is decisive for whether the corona crisis can be quickly ended. As with H1N1, those responsible for the corona crisis say that it can only be ended by vaccination. However, the idea of vaccination has been refuted just as much as that of viruses.
Helpful for the evaluation and classification of the events surrounding the triggering and maintenance of the Corona crisis is the memory of the meanwhile forgotten swine flu pandemic of 2009, when the majority of the population was prepared to be vaccinated against the alleged swine flu viruses. Then there was a delay in the announced delivery of the vaccines. The vaccines could not be filled in ready-to-use syringes, as the novel active ingredient boosters used for the first time damaged the vaccine mixture and rendered it unusable. For this reason, the vaccine was filled in ampoules for 10 persons each, into which the active substance boosters were only allowed to be added shortly before the act of vaccination.
During this time, it became known that the drug amplifiers, called adjuvants, without which a vaccine could not develop its effect, were novel and untested. It became known that these novel drug amplifiers consist of nanoparticles. It is known that nanoparticles are very reactive due to their tiny size and are therefore used as catalysts in many chemical reactions. In technical processes, for example, they cause surfaces to behave completely differently than can be achieved by conventional methods. Then it became known that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Armed Forces were to receive this vaccine but without the novel nanoparticle active substance enhancer, whereas the police and the population were to receive the vaccine with the untested nanoparticles.
As a result, 93% of the population rejected the vaccine produced for them. Only 7% of Germans have had the vaccine administered. The human metabolism cannot metabolize and excrete nanoparticles. Because of this refusal on the part of almost the entire population, the swine flu actually disappeared from one evening to the next morning, as if by magic, from the media into the sink and the vaccines into a blast furnace. (A small polemic is allowed: astonishingly, the swine flu virus H1N1 took off in a pig gallop, did not infect other people any more, did not let the infected fall ill, its media presence stopped immediately. Maybe the swine flu virus has turned into fish flu viruses, to swim up the rivers in the bodies of salmon, only to strike again with concentrated force at the fish market in Wuhan).
The epidemiologists, infectiologists and virologists involved have learned from the failure of pandemic planning, which did not culminate in vaccination. They analysed the causes and published their findings and recommendations for the future in issue No. 12, December 2010 of the Bundesgesundheitsblatt (Federal Health Paper). The meaningful title of this issue: "Pandemics. Lessons learned" Which means as much as: The lessons we have learned from the swine flu H1N1 debacle!
Some of the articles contained in this issue can be viewed on the Internet, (8) but the main ones are not. The key recommendations for pandemic management are
- Ensure that experts do not contradict each other in public discussions.
- Early involvement of leading and social media.
- Control of the Internet. This in order to prevent claims and criticism from jeopardizing the consensus and acceptance of the measures in politics and society.
These recommendations have now been successfully implemented! The Internet is censored, critics are excluded by insults, among other things. Compulsive arguments that refute the pandemic assumption and have made it into the public domain are simply not addressed. Only one expert, Prof. Drosten, is heard in the media and politics. The only "criticism" of him, voiced by an HIV virologist, had the function of reinforcing the central assertion of the existence of a novel virus, SARS-CoV-2.
4. The globalisation of the Chinese SARS virus panic and setting the course for the corona crisis by Prof. Drosten
Prof. Christian Drosten from the Charité in Berlin claims that from 1.1.2020 he has developed a genetic detection method with which he can reliably detect the presence of the new corona virus in humans. (9) On 21.1.2020, the WHO recommended the test method he had developed to the Chinese and all nations as a reliable test method for detecting the spread of the alleged new corona virus. (10)
In order a) to be able to understand which assumptions and which actions form the basis of Prof. Drosten's claims and b) to check whether his conclusions to have developed a safe test procedure for the new corona virus are logically and scientifically proven or not, or even refuted, it is necessary to explain the terms and techniques used, to present his argumentation and to analyse the two decisive publications to which Prof. Drosten refers.
- How is a virus and a corona virus defined?
- How are sequences defined in this context?
- How do the detection methods of sequences called PCR, RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR work?
- When may the detection of the presence of sequences in humans be used as proof of the presence of a virus?
- How is the existence of a virus scientifically proven?
- In science, a virus is defined by its specific genetic material, which is unique to that virus. - The genetic material of a virus is also known as the viral genetic strand, the viral genetic molecule or its genome. - The viral genetic material of a virus contains the various genetic sequences for the formation of the various viral proteins, known as viral genes. - The genetic material of a virus can consist of either the two types of genetic molecules, DNA or RNA. - Corona viruses are defined by the fact that they consist of a specific molecule of RNA surrounded by an envelope. - The genetic material of a particular virus is defined by its precisely determined length and the exact determination of the structure of the viral genome strand. - The composition of the genetic material of a virus results from the exact determination of the number and specific sequence of the four building blocks that make up a genetic material. The four building blocks of a genetic material are called nucleotides. - The process of determining the specific sequence of the four building blocks of a genetic material is called sequencing. - The result of determining the sequence of the building blocks of a hereditary substance is called a sequence or genetic sequence. - Disease causing viruses are defined by the fact that their sequence is unique and does not occur in healthy organisms. - In order to detect and determine the presence of the genetic material of a virus, this virus must be isolated and present in pure form, in accordance with the laws of thought and the logic which precedes every science as a fundamental rule, so that gene sequences which do not belong to cells are misinterpreted as components of a virus. - It is only possible to determine the sequence of a genetic substance if it is present in the form of a DNA. - In order to determine the sequence of a genetic substance which is present in the form of RNA, it must first be biochemically converted into DNA. - The process of converting a genetic substance from RNA into DNA is called "reverse transcription" and is called "RT" for short.
The techniques used by Prof. Drosten and first conclusions
- The presence and length of a genetic material is determined by separating it lengthwise in an electric field. Short pieces migrate faster, longer pieces slower. At the same time, in order to determine the length of the genetic material to be examined, pieces of genetic material of known length of different lengths are added. This reliable standard technique for detecting and determining the length of genetic material is called "gel electrophoresis". - If the concentration of a particular genetic material is too low to be detected by the technique of "gel electrophoresis", it can be multiplied at will by the technique of unlimited multiplication of DNA, called polymerase chain reaction. In this way, undetectable DNA can be made visible by gel electrophoresis. This is a prerequisite for making genetic material accessible for further investigations, especially for the subsequent decisive determination of its length and sequence. This method is also known as PCR for short.
The inventor of the PCR technique, Karry Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993, pointed out early on that this, his, for clean room analysis in computer chip factories is very error-prone. In his Nobel Prize speech, which is documented on the Nobel Prize Committee page, he also pointed out that there is no verifiable, actually scientific proof that the genetic substance known as the genome of HIV actually triggers an immune deficiency or one of the various diseases that are unlawfully grouped together under the term "AIDS" and treated with highly toxic chemotherapy. He pointed out that there is only a consensus among participating scientists that "HIV" would trigger an immune deficiency.
In order to be able to reproduce a DNA with the PCR technique, knowledge of the composition, the sequence of the DNA is required. This is because a DNA can only be propagated by PCR if short, artificially produced gene fragments bind to the beginning and end of the DNA, which correspond exactly to the sequence of the beginning and end of the DNA to be propagated. These short pieces of artificially produced DNA are therefore called primers, the starter molecules of the PCR. They are on average between 24 and 30 nucleotides long (the building blocks of genetic material).
Thus, PCR cannot be used to detect unknown sequences or unknown viruses. Only the determination of the sequence of a virus makes it possible to develop a PCR test for the detection of a gene sequence originating from a virus. - In the early days of PCR, it was only possible to determine the amount of amplified DNA using gel electrophoresis after the PCR amplification reaction had been stopped. In the meantime, certain dyes are added to the enzymes and substances required for the PCR. The detection of these dyes during the course of the PCR shows approximately which concentrations of artificially propagated DNA were produced and how much DNA was actually present approximately at the start of the PCR. Because the amount of artificially produced DNA can be determined approximately while the PCR technique is still running, this extension of the PCR technique is called "real-time PCR". A "real-time PCR" that is preceded by another step, the conversion of RNA into DNA using "Reverse Transcription" (RT), is therefore called "real-time RT- PCR".
- Prof. Drosten uses the technique of "real-time RT-PCR" in the test he has developed for the detection of the new corona virus. For this purpose, he has selected short genetic sequences from a data pool on the Internet on 1.1.2020 that are attributed to SARS viruses. On the basis of these sequences of short gene fragments, which are interpreted as possible components of SARS viruses, he designed the PCR primer sequences decisive for the PCR in order to detect the "still" unknown virus in China with his "real-time RT-PCR".
When preliminary compilations of sequences appeared on the Internet on 10.1. and 12.1.2020, which were subsequently modified and published on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020, (11) this was the result of the first two attempts to identify the as yet unknown virus. To this end, the virologists of the CCDC used computer programs to theoretically assemble the sequences of short gene fragments into a possible genetic strand. In both publications, the CCDC virologists state that there is no evidence that these sequence suggestions can actually cause diseases. On 10.1. and 12.1.2020, the Chinese sequence proposals were still provisional and had not yet been subjected to the strict process of scientifically prescribed review.
The fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends the PCR detection test developed by Prof. Drosten for the detection of the new virus on 21.1.2020, even before the publication of the publications of the first two Chinese sequence proposals, proves a first fact: Prof. Drosten used scientifically unproven data for his rapidly globalised PCR test of the 2019-nCoV, which was renamed SARS-CoV-2 on 7.2.2020 (12) with the collaboration of Prof. Drosten.
The renaming on 7 February 2020 of the name "nCoV" to "SARS-CoV-2", a mere viral presumption of a possibly defective or harmless virus, into a dangerous pathogen, gave the public the impression that an actual SARS virus had been discovered in China, causing a dangerous disease, namely SARS, and killing the new idol of China, Li Wenliang, who dwarfed the party leadership. Prof. Drosten and his colleagues in the Virus Nomenclature Group thus fulfilled the expectations of the population, who were terrified to the core: "finally diagnosed". This expectation was awakened by the momentum of the mass panic triggered by Dr. med. Li Wengling and apparently fulfilled by Prof. Drosten. The decisive factor in evaluating this act is the fact that at that time all the virologists directly involved testified - and still testify today - that there is no evidence that this new virus actually causes disease. Or does it only occur in parallel in diseases, in healing processes, after healing processes, in some healthy people, in many healthy people or in all people?
This alone proves that Prof. Drosten has crossed the clearly recognizable line from scientifically justified action to a recognizable and momentous fraud. He will also not be able to talk his way out of this by using a journal for the publication of his test procedure on 23.1.2020 (13) which does not check the statements made in it before going to press.
5. The crucial questions for a rapid end to the corona crisis
The central and all-decisive question is whether Prof. Drosten has fulfilled his scientific duty, which is part of his employment contract, (14) to himself and consistently verify all the assertions made in his publication about the detection method he developed and the public statements based on it.
This central scientific duty gives rise to three central questions:
I. Did Prof. Drosten check whether the gene sequences that are the basis of his test procedure and that were provided to him by Chinese virologists are actually sequences that originate from a virus?
II. Did Prof. Drosten carry out the control experiments that are mandatory in science to prove whether the sequences he used actually originated from a virus? Did he carry out the control experiments that prove whether the sequences he uses, which he attributes to the new virus, are in fact sequences that are not created in every metabolism, perhaps even in plants, such as Tanzanian papayas (15) , or that are produced in increased numbers in the metabolism when diseases occur?
III. On the basis of which assumptions, experiments and control experiments can Prof. Drosten claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects partial areas of 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease-causing virus? And not just fragments of a virus, after an assumed successful battle of the immune system or the presence of "defective" or "incomplete" or "harmless" viruses in our genetic material, which are typical and make up 50% of the gene masses of our chromosomes?
The answers result from the documented actions of Prof. Drosten during the development of the test procedure and from the documented non-actions of Prof. Drosten until today. The virologist Prof. Drosten, who developed the detection method for the new corona virus (first referred to as 2019-nCoV then, from 7.2.2020 as SARS-CoV-2), describes the development of the test procedure in a publication published on 23.1.2020.16 On page 3 of this article, left column, 8 lines from below, he describes the first and decisive step of his approach:
„Before public release of virus sequences from cases of 2019-nCoV, we relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak.“
This means that Prof. Drosten and his colleagues have assumed, based on reports in the social media, that the alleged outbreak of atypical pneumonia could involve a SARS-related corona virus. At the time, there was no clinical data available to support such an assumption. What was his next step?
"We have downloaded all complete and partial (average length >400 nucleotides) of SARS-associated virus sequences that were available on the GenBank on January 1, 2020". Continue in the right column of page 3, third row from the top: "We aligned these sequences [note from me, SL: against a standard given SARS virus sequence] and used the aligned sequences to develop our tests (Figure S1 in the supplement to this publication)."
"After the publication of the first 2019 nCoV sequence on virological.org, we selected three tests based on how well they matched the 2019 nCoV genome (Figure 1). ("We downloaded all complete and partial (if >400 nt) (average length >400 nucleotides) SARS-related virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020 [... .] These sequences were aligned and the alignment was used for assay design (Supplementary Figure S1). Upon release of the first 2019-nCoV sequence at virological.org, three assays were selected based on how well they matched to the 2019- nCoV genome (Figure 1).
His remarks resulted in clear answers, conclusions and consequences
I. Did Prof. Drosten check whether the gene sequences that are the basis of his test procedure and that were provided by Chinese virologists are actually sequences that originate from a virus? The answer is no! He was unable to check whether the sequences offered were from a virus, because the two decisive publications describing the extraction of the gene sequences used by him were not available to him before his test was launched.
II. Did Prof. Drosten carry out the control experiments that are mandatory in science to prove whether the sequences he used actually originated from a virus? Did he carry out the control experiments that prove whether the sequences he uses, which he ascribes to the new virus, are in fact sequences that are produced in every metabolism, perhaps even in plants, or that are produced in increased numbers in the metabolism of diseases? The answer is: No! Neither he, nor the virologists of the CCDC, nor others have demonstrably carried out these necessary control experiments to this day and if they have, they have not published them. For these crucial control experiments, short gene sequences of the metabolism of healthy individuals must be used to sequence them. These short gene sequences, like the gene sequences from sick people, must be assembled with the same computer programs to form a long genetic strand of a virus. This experiment was either never carried out or never published. There is not even a mention of this mandatory control experiment - resulting from the laws of thought and the logic of virology - in order to consistently control one's own results. The moment this attempt is carried out and published, the Corona crisis is immediately over. The other control experiment resulting from scientific logic is the intensive test, by means of the developed PCR procedure (real-time RT-PCR), with clinical samples from people with diseases other than those attributed to the virus and using samples from healthy people, animals and plants to test whether these samples do not also test "positive". These further control experiments, which are logically necessary to validate a test procedure, i.e. to check whether it is valid and has any significance, have not yet been carried out and have not even been claimed to have been carried out. Therefore, the inventors and producers of these test procedures have ensured themselves by appropriate information on the package inserts, e.g. that the test is only to be used for study purposes and is not suitable for diagnostic purposes.
I can predict with certainty that people who release increased amounts of gene sequences from the tissue type of squamous epithelia, e.g. kidney patients, will be tested "positive" with the PCR developed by Prof. Drosten at the latest when their smear quantity is multiplied and concentrated a little bit. It is very likely that even all organisms can be tested positive.
I call on biochemists, bioinformaticians, virologists and cell culture specialists to carry out these control experiments, to publish them and to inform me about them. I have designed a control experiment which excludes from the outset the excuse that the sample material used has been contaminated with the SARS-Cov-2 virus before or during the control experiment. The costs for the performance of the control experiments are covered if I and neutral observers are allowed to be present during the performance of the control experiments and each step is documented. Please contact the publishing house for contact. The results will end the corona crisis immediately. It is of no use if only I present the results of the control experiments.
III. On the basis of which assumptions, experiments and control experiments Prof. Drosten can claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects partial areas of only 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease-causing virus and not just fragments of a virus, after an assumed successful battle of the immune system or through the presence of the numerous "defective", "incomplete" and "harmless" viruses in our genetic material?
Prof. Drosten did not consider these logical questions at all, because they do not appear anywhere in his publications and claims. The detection of only short gene sequences from a long genome strand of a virus can never prove the presence of an intact and therefore reproducible virus. To be able to call such a PCR test valid, studies would first have to be undertaken whose results show that the detection of short gene sequences automatically proves the presence of a whole and intact genetic strand of a virus. Such logically compelling studies have not been carried out or mentioned to date.
At the beginning of the corona crisis, the leading virologist, Prof. Karin Mölling, a leading expert in the field of cell-associated, harmless, incomplete or defective viruses known as endogenous, described the measures taken as unjustified. She has shown in publications and in a book (17) that half of the genetic material of humans, i.e. half of the sequences of which our chromosomes are composed, consists of inactive and defective gene sequences of viruses. What it does not know, or is concealing, is the fact that metabolism constantly produces a large amount of RNA gene sequences of any composition, which do not appear in the form of DNA sequences in the chromosomes. This fact calls into question the claims of existence of all RNA viruses, such as corona viruses, Ebola virus, HIV, measles virus and the SARS viruses. This fact is also the basis why with control experiments not only the corona crisis, but the fear and mishandling by the entire virology of the alleged disease viruses is immediately ended. I can assure you that the actual causes and phenomena of infection attributed to viruses have been proven in the "positive" sense of the word "science". For this I refer to the previous article "Misinterpretation Virus" in the magazine WissenschafftPlus No. 1/2020, which can also be purchased as pdf-file. And, of course, to the many previous contributions around this question.
The continuation "Misinterpretation Virus III" follows.
Translated 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
(1) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 727-33. DOI: 10.1056/NEJ-Moa2001017. Published on 24.1.2020.
(2) Of the responsibility of a virologist. Is Christian Drosten victim or perpetrator? Published in the blog of peace activist Peter Frey, peds-ansichten.de on 26.5.2020.
(3) SARS, Wikipeda Entry vom 29.5.2020
(4) Xing-Yi Ge et al., Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature. Band 503, 2013, S. 535–538, doi:10.1038/nature12711;
(5) Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. Ben Hu, Lei-Ping Zeng, Xing-Lou Yang et al., PLoS Pathogens. 13(11): e1006698, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698;
(6) See source 1 and: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature | Vol 579 | 12 March 2020 | 265-269. Published on 3.2.2020.;
(7) Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 420–22. Published Online February 17, 2020.
(8) Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Edition Nr. 12, December 2010. Pandemics. Lessons learned
(9) Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Prof. Christian Drosten und Mitarbeiter. Euro Surveill.2020;25(3):pii=2000045. Published on 23.1.2020.
(10) Diagnostika: First test for novel coronavirus developed. Medica Magazin from 21.1.2020.
(11) See 6;
(12) Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group.
(13) See 9;
(14) § 2 Principles of Good Scientific Practice : (1) u.a. "consistently questioning your results“ und "complying with the recognised principles of scientific work in the individual disciplines.“ In: New version of the statutes of Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin to ensure good scientific practice of 20.06.2012 (AMB Charité Nr.092, S. 658)
(15) Shows how the findings are handled in the public when the fruits also test "positive" for "SARS-Cov-2".
(16) See 9;
(17) See the book by Karin Mölling with the interesting title "Viruses: More Friends Than Foes", 420 pages, which in 2016 has been published in German.