Stefan Lanka Explains Seven Flaws in Virology

Plus a challenge to virologists: film your method for the public to see. Plus, where to purchase stocks of the Omicron 'variant' for $1200. Plus where to download the genomic sequencing Python code!

I wanted to highlight one question and answer from a lesser known interview with virologist Stefan Lanka by Antonio Muro found on John Blaid’s site or if that gets taken down on my Google Drive. I have italicized what I feel are the important points.

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

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

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

Point 2. Virologists assume that the virus is in the millions of tiny fragments of genetic material in that mixture of dead cells, so they pick out a few and sort or align them to build - using computer programmes! a complete viral genome that they have not actually found.

In fact, neither in cell cultures like these, nor in saliva, nor in blood has a complete viral genome ever been found. They construct it artificially. So it is the first team of virologists that constructs a viral genome that determines what it looks like, and all the others repeat the same alienation process so they get a result that is 99.99% identical to the reference genome, the one that was supposed to have been "isolated" the first time. In short, they find what they want to find! That they never find a complete viral genome and have to construct it that way is a clear indication that, quite simply, there is no such viral genome, there is no virus.

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

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

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

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

Point 7. Infection experiments are carried out on animals in order to cause symptoms similar to those ascribed to coronavirus. The idea is to demonstrate that the virus spreads and causes a range of symptoms. This is done by injecting fluid into their brains or by inserting a tube into their lungs. Well, what that causes is aspiration pneumonia, but not because the fluid they are injected with has coronavirus in it: any sterile fluid would cause inflammation of the lungs (pneumonia)! Reading such studies, one realises that the symptoms described are caused by the cruelty of the experiment itself and not by the pathogen they are supposedly inoculated with, be it "X" or "Y", HIV or SARS-CoV-2. Hence, here too, no control experiments are carried out.

Seven rebuttals and seven blatantly unscientific procedures. In the infection protection laws of many countries, scientific rigour is demanded of all those involved, and this is being seriously flouted. There is no science here, but anti-science. The refutation of the official version is on the table and this alone destroys any legal justification for the measures being taken.

---

You can purchase the Omicron ‘variant’ of ‘SARS-CoV-2’ for only $1200 from ATCC (American Type Culture Collection): https://www.atcc.org/products/vr-3347hk

This excellent video from Steve Falconer is similar to Lanka’s reasoning and has real-life analogies: https://odysee.com/@spacebusters:c9/Germs-Debunk-corona:1?r=8dVRRoTGwQdtgeFTtCbgSstbHy2iixzm .

For a specific virology paper that demonstrates the flaws Lanka details, here is my article on a myxoma ‘virus’ paper that is often cited because they claim to have sequenced the entire genome:

Summary of the first SARS-Cov-2 paper (Wu, et al.):

Download Megahit from Github and run it yourself with Python!: https://github.com/voutcn/megahit . Oddly, this version 1.2.9 was last updated in Oct of 2019. Trinity seems to be updated more frequently- this Feb 2023: https://github.com/trinityrnaseq/trinityrnaseq . And why is there a need for two programs? Why not 4 or 7!

The Fan Wu original genome paper:

Fan Wu Naked Centerfold

Jamie Andrews details Lanka’s trial:

Legally Speaking

Since Lanka’s trial concerned a ‘measles virus’, here is the foundation for that, John Enders and Thomas Peeble’s 1954 paper:

So to all the virologists out there, can anyone at least just once, outside your paywalls, video record your entire experimental methods for the public to analyze? No, you can’t?

Thanks for reading.