“The term antibody today refers to discrete biochemical entities present in the blood. The belief that antibodies are such entities is held not only by scientists and physicians, but also by the lay public, who learns about “antibodies,” if not in school, then at least in the course of routine medical practices such as vaccination and, increasingly, through the so-called popularization of science. In addition, some people will readily associate the term antibody with the characteristic Y-shaped structure found not only in textbooks and specialized scientific articles but also, more recently, in advertisements and even as the logos of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.”
he documents released so far by the FDA are “inadequate” to assess the quality of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing process.
Of the more than 1 million pages produced by the FDA in response to the lawsuit, there should have been thousands of pages of manufacturing documents, she said. “Yet, almost none have been produced.”
Latypova said:
“There are several documents that became public after a leak from the European Medicines Agency in late 2020 that included Pfizer’s extensive communication with the FDA responding to queries on manufacturing process quality control.
“These documents have not been included in the FDA production in this lawsuit. The FDA should explain why.”
It’s important that the FDA release all manufacturing documents because the public deserves “assurances that the manufacturing process is high quality and rigorously controlled,” Latypova said.
Yet the FDA released “almost no documentation” from Module 3 of Pfizer’s Biologics License Application. Latypova explained:
“Module 3, or Chemistry Manufacturing Controls documentation, typically comprises approximately 20-30% of the new drug or biologics application as it deals with the manufacturer’s ability to demonstrate that their process ensures purity, potency and lack of contaminants in the final product as dispensed to the patient.
“Since there have been numerous reports, including in peer-reviewed publications, that Pfizer’s Comirnaty product is contaminated with non-conforming microRNA, DNA plasmids, SV40, different metals, protein, micro- and macro- objects in the vials — there are significant concerns with the manufacturing process failures.”
Dr Lanka had approached an eminent mathematician to blow the smoke away from this mathematical complexity hiding the fraudulence behind the claims that a SARS-CoV-2 “virus” had ever been found at all.
Download following to know more and remember knowledge will save you! And stay away from me on the day of ressurection unless you follow what Allah ordained you i.e. use your critical thinking/reasoning. Woof woof you mad fucking dog get the fuck outta here with your fucking muzzle! Read following article from WHO: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/health/who-declares-mpox-a-public-health-emergency-as-newer-strain-spreads-in-africa/ar-AA1oNOIk?ocid=OnOSkypeChannels In… Continue reading Urgent: DO NOT fall for this new W.H.O monkey shagging trap!
Part THREE of a three part series. “A Farewell to Virology” is a 29,000 word essay debunking virus theory and virology, written by Dr Mark Bailey, MBChB, PGDipMSM, MHealSc. It has yet to be contested and the purpose of this film is to explain why.
This film version walks the layperson through the paper and scientific evidence in an easy, simple and understandable way, so that they may better understand and be able to easily explain to others the great hoax of the last few centuries and certainly last three years, that fictional particles called “viruses” exist, cause illness and are reasons to lock down and destroy societies and economies and cause lifelong disease and misery through needless and useless vaccination programs. They don’t.
This article summarizes a small portion of the manuscript HIV – A virus like no other, compiled by the Perth Group in 2017, almost 3 years prior to the “COVID-19 pandemic”.
The portion of the manuscript summarized below demonstrates, on the one hand, just how phenomenal the work of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the Perth Group was. Moreover, that long before Stefan Lanka and Thomas Cowan, there was a group of people who were pointing out the flawed science upon which virology rests, and because of which the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people had been destroyed.
On the other hand, the work summarised also illustrates just how incredibly important control experiments are. How one cannot and should not claim an experiment to be valid or “clear-cut evidence” of anything prior to seeing the control experiments that were carried out in parallel with it. How, in actuality, it is completely irresponsible to place any reliance on an experiment that had no controls.
The existence of HIV is said to have been demonstrated by Luc Montagnier in 1983 after he and his team claimed to have “isolated” the “retrovirus” from a patient who was thought to be at risk of AIDS. The following year Robert Gallo claimed to have “isolated” the exact same type of particles from 26 out 72 (36%) patients with AIDS and concluded, in 1986, that the data obtained from his experiments was “clear-cut evidence” that AIDS was caused by “HIV”.
In all instances where it has been claimed that “HIV” was “isolated” and “purified”, the process known as density gradient centrifugation was used to separate the “retrovirus” particles from everything else in a cell culture which had been “infected” with a biological sample taken from an AIDS patient.
The basic theory behind the purification process is that when a test-tube containing a sample of the infected cell culture plus a sucrose solution is spun at high speeds and centrifugal force acts on the contents, particles within the sample will group together according to their similar weights and sizes (buoyancy) and settle out into sperate layers along the test tube.
By way of an example, all particles in a sample with a buoyant density of 1 will group together in one layer and all particles with a buoyancy of 2 will group together and form another layer. The number of layers formed will depend on how many types of particles are present in the tube.
The adoption of this method by Montagnier and Gallo is based on the opportune fact that “retrovirus” particles are believed to have a buoyant density of 1.16 g/ml in a sucrose solution. Meaning, Montagnier and Gallo believed they knew exactly into which layer in the test tube the “retrovirus” particles would separate out into after a sample had undergone density gradient centrifugation.
Accordingly, all that needed to be done to obtain “purified HIV particles” was to get access to that 1.16 g/ml layer or band in the test-tube and they would have a solution purified of everything except HIV “retrovirus” particles.
It was with these solutions of “pure HIV particles” (1.16 g/ml bands) that Montagnier and Gallo claimed to be able to determine the shape, size, chemistry, and infectiousness of “HIV” particles.
There were, however, two main issues with the experiments carried out by Montagnier and Gallo. Issues which became very obvious when other scientists tried to replicate Gallo and Montagnier’s work and carry out their own experiments with these “purified” particles.
First, both Montagnier and Gallo neglected to publish the electron micrographs of the solutions of “pure HIV particles” (the 1.16 g/ml band) which they said had been used by them to identify and determine the characteristics (size and shape) of the “HIV particles”.
Moreover, they both failed to carry out control experiments alongside their “purification” procedure. Thereby making it impossible to verify, without redoing the experiment, whether the particles claimed to be “HIV particles” are in fact only found in the “infected” samples.
This meant that for a very long-time scientist were merely taking Montagnier and Gallo’s word that the solution they had obtained after carrying out density gradient centrifugation was indeed “pure HIV particles” and that the particles they had seen under the electron microscope were the shape and size claimed by them.
The second issue concerned the biochemistry makeup of the “purified HIV” particles. In this case, Montagnier and Gallo had also failed to carry out control experiments. Meaning, it was impossible to verify, without redoing the experiments, whether the makeup of the “HIV” particles as claimed by them was in fact unique to the “isolated” particles and not being conflated with any other particles that were part of the experiment.
The scientific community took 14 years to rectify these oversights and publish the required electron micrographs and results of the appropriate control experiments.
While the authors of these studies seemingly appeared not to realise the impact of their publications on Montagnier’s and Gallo’s findings, it was obvious to Eleni and the Perth Group that these experiments completely invalidated Montagnier and Gallo’s conclusions regarding HIV and AIDS.
Moreover, it did not escape the Perth Group that, over the 14-year period that Montagnier and Gallo’s experiments were consider valid, hundreds of people had been diagnosed with “HIV” and treated with toxic drugs on the basis of this flawed science.
The Gluschankof Control Experiment
In 1997 Pablo Gluschankof, the leader of a large European HIV research collaborative, after replicating Montagnier and Gallo’s “purification” process, published a paper which included electron micrographs taken of both the solution claimed to consist of pure “HIV” particles (the 1.16 g/ml band) and a valid control carried out alongside the process. Even a cursory inspection of these images makes it plain that whatever material is actually in those solutions, it is not pure.
(a) and (b) are purified solutions from an “infected” culture and (c) is a purified solution from an uninfected culture.
The electron micrographs published in the Gluschankof study make it clear that these solutions are in actual fact contaminated to a large degree by cellular debris (bits of the cell culture). Gluschankof et al also cannot avoid admitting this, and that this is the case for both the “infected” and uninfected samples.
For these samples to be called purified retrovirus particle the solutions should contain nothing but virus particles and all particles in the sample should look to be almost exactly the same. This is clearly not the case with these samples.
What is also obvious is that there appears to be virus particles in both the “infected” (marked with arrows) and uninfected sample (marked with squares).
It is also worth noting, that these marked particles are bigger than what retrovirus particles are believed to be and are not the shape they are supposed to be – they lack the cone-shaped cores, lateral bodies and spikes/ nobs protruding from the membrane.
The Gluschankof control demonstrates that “HIV” was never isolated or purified according to the true meaning of the words. It shows that what was claimed to be a solution of pure “retrovirus” particles is in actual fact a soup of particles. This fact in turn, brings into questions the accuracy and legitimacy of all experiments and tests Montagnier and Gallo carried out with these so called “pure” solutions.
The Bess Control Experiment
In 1997, a group from the US National Cancer institute led by Julian Bess, also replicated Montagnier and Gallo’s “purification” procedure and published a paper in which the biochemistry of the “pure HIV particles” ( the 1.16 g/ml band) was analysed. Included in this paper were the results of a control carried out alongside this analysis.
The analysis of the chemistry of the “pure” particles basically amounts to nothing more than determining what the different proteins are which make up the “virus” particles, this is done using a method called electrophoresis.
Electrophoresis is a procedure that is used to separates a mixture of proteins into its individual proteins so that one can determine exactly what proteins make up the mixture. The procedure essentially consists of an electric current attracting the proteins from one side of a gel bath to the other, separating them according to their molecular weights – the lighter proteins moving faster and further along the gel bath, the heavier proteins lagging behind.
Once the proteins have completely separated out from one another the gel is removed and stained. The staining reveals the relative position of each of the separated proteins in the gel and appears as a series of dark, horizontal lines or bands – the protein profile. The thicker and darker the bands the greater the concentration of a particular protein at that position in the gel. One is then able to determine what the particular proteins involved are by comparing the stained results to the stained results of previous electrophoresis experiments carried out with known proteins.
According to Montagnier and Gallo’s work, a solution of “HIV particles” with some cellular contaminates, will show 15 additional proteins to those found in a purified solution of an uninfected cell culture put through the same process. These 15 additional proteins, not found in purified solutions of uninfected cell cultures, are said to be the proteins which constitute the “HIV” particles.
In other words, when comparing the electrophoresis results, one would expect to see 15 horizontal lines in the protein profile of the solution obtained from “infected” culture which do not appear in the protein profile of the solution obtained from uninfected cultures.
Note, A = uninfected B and C = HIV-infected. Actin and HLA DR = cellular proteins; kDa = molecular weight scale.
Bess carried out electrophoresis on “purified” solutions obtained from three separate cell cultures. “A” in the above image was an uninfected cell culture (the control) and “B” and “C” were cell cultures that had been “infected” with “HIV particles”. As is apparent from the results above, apart from the quantitative (concentration) differences in the results (labelled p6/7, p17 and p24), the protein profiles of B and C are identical to A.
This means that no extra proteins whatsoever, let alone the 15 “HIV proteins”, were found in the solutions obtained from the “infected” cell cultures. The only difference between the samples is that the “infected” samples seemed to have higher concentrations of proteins 6/7, 17 and 24.
Accordingly, the only thing that these results demonstrate is that “infected” cell cultures have greater concentrations of the proteins found in uninfected cultures – i.e more cellular proteins were added not virus proteins.
The Bess control experiment therefore demonstrates that all experiments which made use of the “unique” protein makeup of the “HIV” virus, such as all immunoassay experiments, were fundamentally flawed. The most important being, if there are no unique “HIV” proteins to be found there can be no “HIV antibodies” and thus no HIV antibody tests or HIV genome.
Conclusion
The fact that Montagnier and Gallo did not carry out these simple controls, is not nearly as shocking as the fact that the scientific community was prepared to accept Montagnier and Gallo’s experiments as valid without these controls. This is especially so when one considers the impact the results of these experiments had on the lives of so many people.
The Gluschankof and Bess control experiments demonstrate beyond any doubt how crucial control experiments are for verification of results and how without them virologists (or any scientist really) can claim complete garbage as irrefutable fact.
The fact that the Perth Group picked up on these controls and understood their impact on the accepted science, at a time when no one else in the scientific community seemed to be even the slightest bit sceptical, is a testament to their integrity and the quality of science that they carried out.
Eleni and the Perth Group were truly the OG’s of the no-virus movement and had their work received the attention it deserved at the time of its publication, we might have found the world today to be a totally different place.
Author’s notes:
The above is a simplification of the experiments carried out by the named scientist. For example, all samples obtained from the patients were “isolated” in cell cultures (of different types in some cases) prior to being “purified” by means of density gradient centrifugation but these “isolation” or culturing procedures are not discussed in an effort not to over burden the article. In addition, in some instances, samples underwent more than one round of “purification” and culturing before the ultimate analysis was carried out. All these details and more are set out and discussed at length by Eleni in her manuscript, HIV- A virus like no other, should you wish to review them. The full procedures relating to the control experiments are of course also set out in the Bess and Gluschankof papers linked below.
It’s interesting to note that Bess et al also published electron micrographs of the “pure HIV” particles “isolated” by means of density gradient centrifugation – see Bess paper for these micrographs. Further, that just as was the case with the Gluschankof electron micrograph, the Bess micrographs also demonstrated that the solution obtained from the 1.16 g/ml bands was anything but pure. However, whereas the Gluschankof micrographs depicted particles of 140 nanometres, the Bess micrographs depicted particles almost double the size measuring almost 240 nanometres. This is problematic as it would mean that Bess’ particles would have a mass 4.7 times greater than the Gluschankof particles, which is more than an unusual finding for one and the same virus. See pg 25-26 and footnote 164 in HIV- A virus like no other.
Probably one of the best events on the topic of no virus in recent history was the court case between Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. David Bardens. Jamie went to considerable lengths to dig up and translate the court proceedings in a thread on Twitter that can be reviewed here.
24 November 2011 the German Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka offered a prize of €100k for a scientific publication in which the alleged existence of the “measles virus” is proven. He did this to raise awareness to what he believed was fraudulent science behind mandatory measles vaccinations.
This Challenge was undertaken by Dr. David Bardens who submitted 6 papers he believed proved the existence of the measles virus and took it to Ravensburg Regional Court on non payment. An Ad Hoc judgment was made on 12 March 2015 by Judge Schneider before any rebuttal from Dr. Lanka.
If you search for this court case this is normally what you are met with in the search results. Piles of articles showing that Dr. Lanka lost because of this first court case decision but nothing can be further from the truth.
The Lanka Court Case – Part 1
This Ad Hoc judgment ordered Lanka to pay the prize money to Bardens. Lanka appealed the decision and it was taken to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court where they would let Lanka make a scientific rebuttal.
The online court records can be reviewed by following the below link:
He was a Bacteriologist with no practical or published competence in the field of virology. His cross examination is recorded in minutes at Ravensburg Court.
It is written in German and a translation app was used, if German speakers could verify the translations that would be of great help. The words of importance are unambiguous but just for the record it is a translated version (all block quoted text in the Lanka court case sections are translations from the court proceedings).
The 6 seminal papers Dr. David Bardens listed as hard concrete evidence that measles virus is causal are:
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measels virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.
Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.
In the court case they focus a lot on the examination of one specific paper by John Enders in 1954. The so called isolation of the measles virus which was coincidently the first time the technique of cell culture isolation was used and is still used for every isolation of a virus in virology.
Explain: The contribution by Enders ^~^ Peebles 1954 definitely fulfils the Henle-Koch postulates of classes formulations No. 1 and 2. There is even a certain biochemical characterization (temperature sensitivity) and a statement of size. In the contribution by Bech ^~^ from Magnus 1958, the third classic Hanle-Koch postulate is also fulfilled. We have additionally demonstrated in this paper the defense reaction which is relevant in the expanded version of these postulates as stated. In fact, however, an experiment in the sense of the 4th classically formulated Henle-Koch postulate was not carried out at that time. As for the other three original papers, these deal significantly with the size and electron microscopic representation of the measles virus and fall out of this review to some extent. The overview article from 1995 then cites and present several articles which, with regard to the measles virus, fulfill all postulates no. 1 to 4 in the classis formulation.
In cross examination of this paper Podbielski makes 2 major admissions:
1. This Paper has “No Negative Control”:
Page 7: I cannot now say whether there is an article that comprehensively presents the same things as the original articles mentioned without showing their methodological weaknesses, for example with the negative controls that are in fact missing. In this context, I would like to point out again that certain parts of the experimental set-up in the original articles from ‘54 and ‘58 do have a certain control function. The following seems decisive to me: Such scientific articles are used for follow-up work by other scientists.
2. It does not fulfill Koch’s Postulates, which are the scientific criteria laid out for proof of existence of a pathogen.
Page 8: When Assessor Schreiner followed up whether this circumstance reduces the evidential value: No, as biological research has been carried out for many decades, this is not the case. When asked by Assessor Schreiner whether the criticism of the early original work, for example that the work from 1954 did not fulfill Henle-Koch’s postulate 3. does not lead to this work being unusable, or whether one can base anything on such work at all: It is not the task of specialist articles on microbiological matters that each specialist article taken by itself immediately contains all four of these Henle-Koch postulates Fulfills; as we can see, some articles do not deal with it at all. Each article has its own scope and work content. If you wanted to comprehensively meet the requirements of all four Henle-Koch postulates in one article, the article would probably be so lengthy that it might not even be suitable for publication in view of the editor’s specifications.
Podbielski attempts to hide the lack of controls in the paper by stating that it is an “old paper” on which to build. This is a major problem as you will see soon. He also tries to glaze over the the fact that it doesn’t fulfill Koch’s Postulates and in a stunning admission none will.
I really don’t know of a single work that, taken by itself, would fulfill all four postulates.
He also lays the foundations for what is used by those who wish to lie about this trial; that they “could” satisfy Koch’s Postulates but it would have to be a very very long paper. This is a made up fluff in an attempt to obscure the zero evidence that he had and the judges agreed.
Each article has its own scope and work content. If you wanted to comprehensively meet the requirements of all four Henle-Koch postulates in one article, the article would probably be so lengthy that it might not even be suitable for publication in view of the editor’s specifications. In and of itself, there is no shortcoming.
To note, this trial wasn’t short of comedy as we see here “expert” Podbielski clashing with Robert Koch Institute Dr. Mankertz disagreeing with each other over whether or not a virus “should” contain a ribosome!
When asked by Assessor Schreiner what the components of the measles virus are, in particular whether the measles virus contains ribosomes: No, the measles virus does not contain any ribonomes. The common definition of the virus is that it has no ribosomes. Assessor Schreiner then addresses the message from the Robert Koch Institute alleged by defendant, according to which the measles virus contains ribosomes: to his question as to whether such a statement would throw the whole concept of measles virus overboard, so to speak: Such a statement would indeed be extremely astonishing, it would attract the greatest attention in the scientific community and could be published with the prospect of great effect.
So we move to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court proceedings where Dr. Lanka produced his 58 page scientific rebuttal. What follows is the core principal behind this rebuttal.
The reason why the trial is heavily focused on Enders 1954 paper is because it is the supposed proof of isolation of the virus. All other papers presented such as genomic sequencing, EM, protein analysis, PCR etc. have to have an isolated virus as a reference, without which it cannot be considered proof.
Going back to the comments made by Podbielski of “missing negative control”. This was really only half true. The control was not “missing” it categorically failed. The effects meant to denote the presence of a virus were found in the uninfected sample. The part in the Enders, 1954 paper is shown below and a Twitter thread explaining the control results can be reviewed here.
Explanations of the failed Enders 1954 control are as follows (for those not familiar with it):
Now people (lying shill clowns) who support the Trillion dollar pharma genocide machine like to strawman the second part which reads “they could be differentiated after being fixed and stained” as meaning “fine that is a successful control”. The following has to be considered:
A change (CPE) that is meant to denote the presence of a virus if found, at all, in the control is a failed experiment. The differentiation is not described and irrelevant.
In a court of law this has been described as missing i.e not complete.
Also, Podbielski suggested that Enders is an “old” publication to be built upon and assumes this has been done.
I would like to point out again that certain parts of the experimental set-up in the original articles from ’54 and ’58 do have a certain control function. The fallowing seems decisive to me: Such scientific articles are used for follow-up work by other scientists. As a result, a good cleaning mechanism has been established in the specialist literature, which has recently also affected some articles from top-ranking specialist journals. If the processes presented in the article cannot be reproduced in follow-up experiments, this typically comes to light in articles by other researchers. At least that would have been expected with a topic that has been the subject of such intensive research as measles.
Now this is where it gets interesting as we have clarified. Legally this cell culture technique failed. Unfortunately for virologists and the trillion dollar pharma genocide club, this cell culture technique is the gold standard of every virus isolation since 1954 to present.
Again you will note the comments by Prof Podbielski that “This was an old paper” that science could build on. Well if you know the conclusions to this trial (spoiler alert) you will note; There are no scientific additions with any properly conducted negative controls. As a scientific paper legally requires adequate controls to be performed to be used by government policy. In this case for the measles vaccine, we can only conclude that such a paper does not exist and so we also conclude there is no proof of the existence of any virus by cell culture.
So we fast forward to the closing statements of the unanimous decision of all three judges of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart overturning the decision and Granting the plaintiff Dr. Stefan Lanka the Win:
122’ As a result, the appeal was successful, insofar as it is admissible, because the claimant’s criterion of providing evidence of the existence of the measles virus through “a scientific publication” was not met by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-trail attorney’s fees.
123’ 1. The decision on costs is based on §§ 91, 92 Para. 2 No. 1 ZPO
124’ 2. The decision of the provisional enforceability is based on §§ 708 No. 10, 711 ZPO
125’ 3. The revision is not permitted because the requirements of Section 542 (2) ZPO are not met.
Dr. Bardens could then appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Germany withing a certain period. He decided not to appeal the decision and the time has passed for submission.
Now there are plenty of silly little dim wits out there who believe in the mythical air fairies and big pharma so much that they want to spread the categorical lie that “Lanka won on a technicality, because he said the proof had to be in only 1 paper”. I will show you categorically this is a lie. Yes it stipulates that Lanka wanted “a singular paper” and yes it stipulated that a precise measurement of the virus I.e a characterization of an isolated biological particle, was asked for. Not a drawing which is par for the course in satisfying Kochs Postulates.
Evidence by a single scientific publication 88 The prize money is paid out according to the clear wording of the call for entries 89 if a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only claimed, but also proven and its diameter is determined, among other things. The prize money will not be paid if the determination of the diameter of the measles virus is only based on models or drawings like this one.
But the reasons for the judges to accept the singular paper only were based on rational thought not a “technicality” that they didn’t want 100 small letters being “pieced together like a puzzle” as that would not constitute proof. This should be obvious…
92’ Not only the wording speaks for such an understanding, but also the fact that a single work is not only self-contained in terms of its external form and thus clearly delimits the internally structured material, but also that no dispute can arise about through which passage of text which of possibly a large number of works which proof can be provided. With a large number of works that are to be used as proof in their overall view, it can be much more difficult to bring each of the works to a comparable and meaningful level in terms of method and content. In addition, it reduces the effort of the test considerably if the proof has to be provided in a work according to the wording. It is obvious that the defendant, which is also recognizable to third parties, cannot wish for around 50, 100 or 500 different works to be submitted, from which individual text passages or sections are then put together like a puzzle in order to then be able to Reasons of practicability and reasonableness speak in favor of understanding the call for tenders in the way that the wording of them makes a statement in the overall context.
There is also a cry that “because more than one paper was submitted Lanka got off”. This is also a blatant lie spelt out clearly below. There was no limit to the amount of papers you could submit.
Finally, there are no criteria for a meaningful limitation of the number of works to be submitted as evidence in the text of the advert, and such criteria are also not evident: 95’ – Contrary to the regional court – it can also…
But Lanka asked for specific things like “size of the virus”. Obviously if you have an isolated particle you should know its exact size. Problem is that Prof Podbieski noted in his cross examination “he didn’t know but they were all different”.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner how big the measles virus is now: Page 11’ I can’t give any numbers by heart. I have already explained in more detail in my expert report that and why the size information is variable and can be found in the literature discussed.
But onto the most Iron Clad and irrefutable piece of logic that throws the idea of Lanka’s “luck” out of the window. Enders isolation paper “should” have been enough to suffice for proof of existence of the measles virus. One singular paper… The German judicial system disagreed.
The Lanka Court Case – Part 2
In Part 1 we saw how German Virologist Stefan Lanka won his court case showing that there was no proof that the measles virus exists. Really he proved that no virus has ever been isolated as the reason why he won was based entirely on lack of controls.
The isolation method of a supposed virus was dreamt up by John Enders in 1954 who went on to win a Nobel Prize. He took a culture of monkey kidney cells, antibiotics, fetal bovine serum and human samples assumed to contain a virus. He then stresses the culture over days.
When the kidney cells broke down, also called “Cytopathic Effect” (CPE) he pointed at this culture and said “look a virus did that”. The scientifically or logically minded will ask: Was it definitely a virus that did that? How can you tell, you assumed it was there in the first place.
A control is needed to show that it is the variable (virus) causing CPE and not the mixture of other ingredients. So Enders took all those ingredients without adding “infected sample” and still the results showed CPE, meaning it was not something in the human sample causing the effect.
It says that the samples were then distinguishable after being “fixed and stained” but if you are claiming this CPE denotes the presence of a virus and CPE occurred when there could not possibly have been one. Hence the control showed the experiment void.
Bizarrely though, instead of voiding the experiment, the halls of science gave him a Nobel Prize and incorporated his technique into every single experiment “isolating” a virus. This same technique is still being used today and is almost identically to the WHO protocol.
So if we cast our thoughts back to Part 1 in the trial where Podbielski suggests that this “old” technique was presumably built upon since. His assumption was clearly wrong as he was unable to present a single paper with this adequate control showing “something” pathogenic.
I would like to point out again that certain parts of the experimental set-up in the original articles from ’54 and ’58 do have a certain control function. The fallowing seems decisive to me: Such scientific articles are used for follow-up work by other scientists. As a result, a good cleaning mechanism has been established in the specialist literature, which has recently also affected some articles from top-ranking specialist journals. If the processes presented in the article cannot be reproduced in follow-up experiments, this typically comes to light in articles by other researchers. At least that would have been to be expected with a topic that has been the subject of such intensive research as measles.
As part of Stefan Lankas 58 page scientific rebuttal to the Enders paper he instructed a lab to carry out a control experiment, using WHO protocols and materials in a rudimentary test. Here is the description in the court documents and the slides.
The attempt
On behalf of Dr. Lanka verified whether agents other than the alleged measles virus can also lead to cell fusion with resulting cell death (=syncytia formation) in cell cultures that looks exactly like the one in the standardized protocol that, based on the 1954 publication by Enders & Peebles for the Detection of the measles virus” has become globally binding. For this purpose, the protocol of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the detection of measles infection in cell cultures[21] was strictly followed.
The cell lines Vero/CCL-81 and Vero/hSLAM were used. The Vero cells were isolated in March 1962 by Y. Kasumura and Y. Kawakita from the kidney t issues of African monkeys (Cercopithecusaethiops}. They are among the most frequently used continuous mammalian cell lines in research. The Vero/hSLAM cells were transfected with the vector plasmid pCxN2 from Dr. Developed by Yusuke Yanagi. The vector plasmid pCxN2 has a Neomycin resistance gene and an expression plasmid (pCAG-hSLAM) encoding the human signaling lymphocytic activation molecule (hSLAM). The Vero/hSLAM cell line is now recommended for routine ‘isolation’ of the ‘measles virus’. The participants understand isolation as the generation of the effect of syncytial formation in the test tube, which since 1954 has been ad hoc equated with the presence, multiplication and transmission of a “virus” from a person into the test tube, although isolation of a “measles virus” within the meaning of
Lanka’s Latest Control Test
Even though Lanka won the case and had already demonstrated in a court of law that the isolation process was fraudulent he also conducted another control experiment. This time far more comprehensive to squash any doubt. This work was published on 10 March 2022 and the study is discussed below.
Introduction G
Viruses from isolates, eg from bats, are multiplied in cell cultures under harsh culture conditions by giving themby reductionofFetal Calf Serum (FCS) from 10% to 2% or 1% in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) is deprived of a large part of the diet.which conforms to ATCC recommendations. Food deprivation is also routinely combined with high concentrations of Gibco’s triple antibiotics (penicillin/streptomycin antibiotics with amphotericin B antifungal) and sequential blind passage of cell culture supernatants to the next cell culture.[22]
Morphologically, virion amplification leads to cytopathic effects (CPE) that result in cell rounding, ballooning, and cellular degeneration, ultimately manifested by plaque formation in a confluent cell culture. Accordingly, viral particles enriched from these cell culture supernatants can be imaged by electron microscopy. To exclude the hypothesis that harsh stress conditions without virus inoculation might lead to the formation of exosomes[23] that are virion-like, we routinely screened healthy primary human epithelial cells
Subjected to virus amplification protocols. We then isolated total RNA from starved or control cells and supernatants containing viral RNA.
The lab instructed by Lanka strictly followed WHO protocol guidelines to add all of the cell culture ingredients without the possibility of any “virus” being in the culture.
Materials and methods Cell culture
Commercial human primary epithelial cells of passage 3 were thawed and expanded at 4’000 cells/cm2 in 75cm2 flasks at 37°C with 5% CO2 in defined epithelial low calcium medium (without FCS) and 1 x triple antibiotics (Gibco) (control medium, CM).
At >80% confluency, the expansion cells were detached with 5ml Accutase enzyme at 37°C for 1 O minutes. The Accutase was neutralized with 10ml CM, the cells were centrifuged for 5 minutes at 400G, resuspended in 1 ml CM, the living cells were counted using trypan blue staining in the Countess II device (ThermoFisher).
Cells were sawn out for the experiment or parallel rounds of expansion for subsequent experiments. For each experiment, four groups of healthy primary epithelial cells from the same expanded pool were seeded in CM at 4000 cells/ cm2 in 25cm2 flasks and cultured to >50% confluency.
The medium was then replaced with four experimental conditions; for control cells by fresh CM (Control 1) or commercial DMEM supplemented with GlutaMAX, 10% heat-inactivated FCS and 1 x triple antibiotic (Control 2).
Food was withdrawn by replacing CM with DMEM, with 1 % FCS and 3x triple antibiotics, essentially following virion amplification1 protocols (Starvation 1 & 2). The stressed starvation group 2 was additionally treated with 1 O μg total yeast RNA (yRNA) per culture bottle for 1 hour and thoroughly treated with group 1 & 2 before changing the medium washed with phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Two blind passages were then carried out, in which 50% of the supernatant from Starvation groups 1 and 2 was transferred to the next cell culture. The supernatants were cleared of dead cells by centrifugation at 400G for 5 minutes. The control groups received 100% fresh medium.
The experiments were repeated three times in duplicate. The length of the culture under stress defined in the first biological replicate was kept constant for all experiments. No medium change was performed during the stress period.
P4: media change in control and stressed cells at about 50% confluency; Control cells cultured to >80% confluency, stressed cells cultured for 5 days after media change.
P5: Media change for control and stressed cells >50% confluency, control cells cultured to >80% confluency, stressed cells cultured for 8 days after media change.
P6/RNA isolation: media change in control and stressed cells at about 50% confluency; Control cells cultured to >80% confluency, stressed cells cultured for 5 days after media change. P6/Crystal violet: media change in control and and stressed cells at 100% confluency; Stress induction for 3 days. A representative photograph of all cell cultures was taken daily at room temperature using a Nikon Eclipse TS100 bright field microscope with a Nikon 1J5 camera, a Nikon FT1 adapter and a 4x objective.
The results are shown below. You can clearly see that as the amounts of antibiotics, removal of nutrients and time increases the cell’s that clearly clump together dying off… Cytopathic Effect. The concentrations of these materials and methods were all done to standard WHO procedure.
And here are the cells “fixed and stained” purple. They do look different and you can “tell the difference between stained and unstained” but that doesn’t change the fact that CPE occurred in the control. Hence proving the cell culture method fraudulent.
Below is a description of the results.
Results
Healthy, primary human epithelial cells were grown over four passages (P3-P6) under optimal culture conditions in defined epithelial control medium with 1 x triple antibiotics (CM).
After the first passage, the cell pool was divided into four groups.
After 3 days in CM, cultures were transferred to either fresh CM (CM, Control 1 ), DMEM/GlutaMAX with 10% FCS, 1 x triple antibiotics (Control 2), or stress medium (Starvation 1 & 2).
During the first stress treatment, the stress medium contained OM EM, 1 % FCS and 3x trip le antibiotics.
The second and third passages were “blind” passages in which 50% of the culture supernatant from the last passage was transferred to the next passage in DMEM, 1 % FCS and 3x triple antibiotics.
The second stress group was additionally treated at each passage with total yeast RNA (yRNA) for one hour before adding the stress medium (Starvation 2).
After transfer to DMEM with 10% FCS, the epithelial cells assumed a flatter morphology than in CM and formed a continuous sheet of cells, which is attributed to the high calcium concentrations in DMEM.
Otherwise, the cells continued to divide normally (Figure 1 A – see below).
In contrast, the cell layers in the stress media shrank to small islands with reduced growth and incipient cell degeneration. During the next two passages, cells incubated with the supernatant of the stressed cells from the previous passage showed increasing CPE with cell-free areas resembling virion-related plaques in the cell sheet, and more dead cells floating in the supernatant (Figure 1 B – see further down).
Confluent cultures under stress (Figure 1 C – see below) stained with crystal violet (Figure 1 D – see below) confirm the pronounced CPE.
Pyknotic cells with condensed nuclei or ballooning cells were predominantly present in the Starvation 1 group and areas of total cell dest ruction or plaques were also observed in the Starvation 1 but predominantly in the Starvation 2 group.
The experiments were performed in three biological replicates and two technical duplicates. All cultures were inspected blindly, with stressed cultures easily identified by drastic changes in morphology.
After three passages, the RNA from the control 1 and the two stressed cell groups and supernatants was isolated using viral RNA kits or TRizol and subjected to nextgeneration sequencing. The amount of total RNA isolated was most abundant in control group 1 (Table 1 – see below) and was of good quality in all groups (data not shown). Further supernatants were further used for the analysis of extracellular particles. The experiments are in progress.
Conclusion
Here is the link to the paper to read the control test section of the Enders 1954 paper. This method is still used today in nearly all isolation studies of viruses… Despite it being proven not to work when Enders designed it in 1954 which is explained in his own paper.
Here is a short video of Lanka summarizing all of this work.
This work was done by Jamie Andrews and a link to his twitter account has been provided in the article. It has been published in dpl’s substack but under a separate newsletter created for Jamie’s work. It has been published here with the approval by the author.
If it wasn’t leading to serious brain-washing consequences this would be a circus.
The Microbiology Department at Osaka University and NHK (the quasi-governmental and propaganda organ called the Japan Broadcasting Company) put up a video on-line and on prime-time TV on May 2nd, 2021 called, “Novel Corona virus infected cells clearly seen disintegrating in an 8k resolution [time-lapse] video”.
(This is a slighty modified re-run of a post I made in 2022 when I only had 3 subscribers, mom, dad and Viro the doggie).
👉The only thing that seems to be lapsed however is a lapse in reason of the researchers, who on recorded questioning even admit there was no Corona virus confirmed in these cells (see interview below). This is important because the no-patient sample condition of the cell medium (called a cell culture) serves to prove that cells in cell-cultures (as they are done by virologists who add antibiotics and other material) will disintegrate even on their own thus invalidating this method as a test for a virus.
👉Truth is, even if the cells did not disintegrate on their own, disintegrating on patient sample, or even by adding a purified object suspected of being a virus, is not in and of itself confirmation of a virus, that is a longer discussion (See the bottom of the “Virus Ruse” on Virus Finding 101 ).
Click this image to get the web page with the 1-min video:
The announcer says, “This is an 8k resolution microscope view of animal cells infected with the Novel Corona Virus. You can see the cells becoming distorted and breaking apart. At 8K screen resolution we can see many white particle structures that the researchers say, ‘it is possible that we have seen something like virus infection and growth in this video’ .”
Then lead “researcher” Dr. Eimi Nakayama Associate Professor of Microbiology at Osaka University comes on screen. She seems to be alone reading a script but still decked-out in tight mask regalia and probably also tight pants, says, “This study allowed us to see things we have never seen before.” (does she mean because of the tight pants?). “The hope is that this will lead to new treatments and that we can see the effects in real time.” The propaganda translation meaning is that there is something real scary out there and you will need to get treatment for it. In fact, the upper left of the screen above says, “Serious [Covid-19] cases have now surpassed those of the third wave.”, just to add some spice to your watching the video.
Ok, first let’s just go over the basics of a cell culture. These are monkey kidney cells that have various nephrotoxic antibiotics and antifungal medications put into them that damage the cells. They are also starved of nutrition.
👉Whether you put in patient sample or not, the cell culture will slowly crumble (called the “cytopathic effect”). The no patient sample condition, as seen in the video above thus serves as a control or validation mechanism for the cell culture. Applause anyone? Here learn the scam about cell cultures.
How did they know that SARS-CoV-2 was in it? They didn’t, it’s a PCR test of a patient whose respiratory sample was put in the monkey kidney cell culture. And if you don’t know that PCR tests don’t have the ability to identify a Corona virus you can see this great article. None of the seven “human Coronaviruses” have actually been isolated and all the sequences of the primers of their respective PCRs as well as those of a large number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human genome and in genomes of bacteria and a long list of others.
Who sponsored this circus? Neither NHK nor Osaka Univ. will divulge this info actually. But our correspondent did talk to Dr. Eimi. Here’s our gal in the flesh:
Sorry Eimi, you’re not gonna to be listed as a World Heritage Site anytime soon
Phone Q&A with Eimi:
Me= Our correspondent
The written discussion was edited for clarity (Eimi was said to be evasive, argumentative, and it was hard finding an open moment to get questions into her).
Notes between […] are from Proton Magic
Original recording in Japanese is on file
On Isolation:
Me: How did you confirm these cells on the TV video were Covid?
Her: We didn’t, but we infected other cells with the Kanagawa strain, which was diagnosed by nasal swab and PCR.
[SHE ADMITS THE NHK TIME LAPSE VIDEO IS NOT FROM A COVID VIRUS even though the title of the video is “8k Time lapse of Novel Corona Virus infected cells breaking down” [!!@!!? She’s a “viroLIEgist”].
[Oh, we wouldn’t want to miss a fear porn chance of our microscopist in head to toe PPE, even though Dr. Eimi says the sample has “no virus”]:
Me: Did you purify isolate the Kanagawa strain virus?
Her: Yes it was from Vero cells [a monkey kidney cell mix] and genotyped [You can’t genotype something that is not a purified object!]. This batch wasn’t isolated by density gradient, but others have been [a density gradient separates viral-sized particles on spinning in a centrifuge].
Me: OK do you have a research paper showing density gradient isolation?
Her: No but there’s many out there.
Me: Yes, I’ve read many of them, they show culturing, gene sequencing, and E-M photos but no density gradient.
Her: They’re out there, but density gradient isolation itself isn’t enough to get a paper published.
Me: To make public policy and vaccinate the whole world there should be purified isolation right? Is there a purified isolate to buy?
Me (later): The ATCC “isolate” is a heat-inactivated non-purified so-called “isolate” that was based on one-patient in a paper written by the CDC which is only a cell-culture and metagenomic genome, no purified isolation, article here.
Her: Check out the Japan National Institute of Health they’ve got papers on their site.
I did so and found this BMJ publication in English and 1 short article in Japanese. See the “Proton Magic original investigation” section under point #3 in this post:
I called one of the authors (M. Takeda) and read the paper. It describes sequencing, cell culture, and E-M photo but no density gradient and confirmation of pathology from the separated layers. Dr. Takeda insists his paper shows “isolation”. When I noted to him there was only one case in the Fan Wu “discovery” paper that made a genome from a computer and did not find a particle, he said, “there has to be a first patient”.
Japanese Article: states a mutated strain was isolated but has no description of what they did nor is there any publication, they do not reply to phone or email inquiry.
On the PCR:
Me: About PCR, is it really valid to go to 40-45 cycles?
Her: That’s just to confirm control at 45. Most people are positive at 30-35 cycles [The health authorities in Japan all do 40-45 cycles].
Me: The cycle no for individuals isn’t known, isn’t going to 40-45 too high?
Her: It all depends on the amount of virus in the sample [she’s dodging the question].
Me: What about the many PCR makers that state in their usage sheets that the PCR isn’t specific for Covid and can be positive for flu, RSV, adeno, etc?
Her: Those makers are just flat wrong, the pcr aims at special epitopes on Corona [but no one has found Corona so this is circular-nonsense].
Later I got these 2 examples showing the COVID PCR is not specific:
“Non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), RespiratorySyncytial Virus (type B),Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc”.
2. BIOTEC C. Real Time PCR Detection Kits: Certest BIOTEC 2020.“New Real Time PCR Detection Kit designed for the identification of SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A/B (Flu A/B) and/or Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus A/B (RSV A/B) in respiratory samples. One assay. Multiple pathogens detection”.
None of the above viruses actually exist as pathogenic particles but you can take the names of these viruses to mean different gene fragments that correlate with the genomic registration associated with these “virus” labels. In any case, the Covid PCR doesn’t tell you much of anything. PCR is a molecular amplification tool, not a diagnostic tool.
On Flu:
Me: Why is there near zero flu in Japan this year?
Her: Less people are traveling this year so it didn’t come, also, we are wearing masks.
Me: But in the ’19-’20 season when we were locked down there were over 100k cases of flu in Japan [and people weren’t traveling so much during the Spanish 1918 flu] and doesn’t a mask protect from flu just like Corona even though everyone’s mask is clearly open at the edges?
Her: There wasn’t so much flu in Japan, what the gov’t puts out is a guestimate, and many had immunity to flu from before, and Corona is more infective from aerosol vs flu [how is that proven?].
Me: Don’t people have some immunity to all the Corona colds?
Her: No they don’t, and most people are getting flu vax each year [so why is there so much flu in Japan every year?].
Her: It’s nonsense to compare flu to Corona [she’s dodging the question].
Me: Yes, there’s lot’s of nonsense going on out there.
END OF PHONE INTERVIEW
Conclusion & Award Ceremony:
So here you can see the way the front-line virology researchers think and double-speak. We’re eagerly awaiting for their next time-lapse on Godzilla viruses attacking people in the streets.
I am also proud to announce that Dr. Eimi has been inducted into the Proton Magic Substack “Shrine of Shameless Hucksterism”, our third inductee now behind Karen Kingston, and Steve Kirsch (Our Emeritus Inductee):
Dr. Sam Bailey takes up this post in video (here with Japanese subtitles).
We are now over four years into the COVID-19 fraud and while many things have changed, confusion remains the dominant theme. More people are coming to the realisation that there was no pandemic but there are also plenty of people ramping up “bioweapons” and “gain of function” narratives. Amongst this we have also seen the introduction of a new side-stepping argument that, “virus existence is not important”.
In 2020, we started investigating the virus model and came to the realisation that SARS-CoV-2 did not exist. In fact, there was no scientific evidence that any viruses existed, dating back to the late 1800s literature and the so-called Tobacco Mosaic “Virus”. Those critiquing virology have pointed out that no entity that meets the description of a virus has ever been physically isolated. In order to maintain the illusion, the virologists have not performed properly controlled experiments such as those proposed in the “Settling the Virus Debate” Statement. Indeed, Dr Stefan Lanka had shown that various indirect findings claimed as evidence for viruses are produced by the experimental methodologies themselves.
In 2022, Mark published A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), a formal refutation of almost every aspect of the virus model. As with other works that ‘no virus‘ proponents have produced there has been no direct response to the overall thesis. Instead we have only seen attempts to change the subject, cloud the established definitions of words or introduce new unfalsifiable hypotheses. There is no ‘third way’ when it comes to virus existence and this sophistry only distracts from the fact that no ‘pathogens’ of any type have been shown to exist. The real world human and animal experiments that set out to demonstrate “contagious” entities that cause diseases such as influenza and common colds were monumental flops.
In this video we investigate why realising that viruses do not exist is a pivotal step for reducing fear and creating a better society.
In our book Virus Mania, we called Chapter 7: “H5N1: Avian Flu and Not a Glimmer of Proof” and exposed the foundational fraud behind the attempts to convince the public that there was a deadly new influenza “virus”. We suspected the narrative would be used again which is why we featured it on the cover of the 2021 edition. Sure enough, in 2023 the ‘bird flu’ was being used once more as the excuse to carry out the mass culling of poultry as I covered that year in “Taking Away Your Chickens”.
In recent weeks, the public “health” agencies and mainstream media have been featuring ‘H5N1’ in the headlines and “messaging” to the public that a pandemic could be about to start. As expected, some of the alleged experts have started flapping their wings about “pandemic preparedness” plans. There is also an additional angle in that they are claiming to find the influenza “virus” in milk which appears to be a new weapon in the war against raw milk and unpasteurised products.
By a stroke of luck, or more precisely through bureaucratic bungling, private researcher and biostatistician Christine Massey received a surprise invitation to an online H5N1 roundtable meeting headed by Theresa Tam, the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. This enabled us to secure exclusive footage of how they are rolling out the surveillance program and the virological pseudoscience that underpins the entire fraud. You will need to watch the video to fully appreciate the absurd level of nonsense coming from some of the key enablers in this brewing swindle…
My name is Anas Naeem. I run Light On Light Publishing entirely on my own. Last week, 77,413 people visited my website 0of those ,people donated. If you can, please support this project with a small donation - any amount is appreciated, and it only takes a minute. Donations are made through bank wiretransfer and direct deposit using secure IBAN and provided SWIFTCODE for bank on the donations page.
Alternatively, you can support the site by buying my entire website's posts in downloadable .zip format for only 15$ (on sale for a limited time). Thank you :) & salam!
Please email me for the entire .zip archive on following address:
