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).
Along with our allies we have spent the last four years dismantling every aspect of the virus model whether it concerns “isolation”, antibodies, genomics, PCR, proteomics, electron microscopy, or animal and human studies. In 2022, I published A Farewell to Virology, to date one of the only treatises that outlines a formal refutation of the entire virus model. This was inspired by The Perth Group’s 2017 epic HIV – a virus like no other, the most comprehensive document refuting the existence of ‘HIV’ specifically.
In my recent webinars with Dr Tom Cowan we have been discussing the scientific method, along with the concepts of independent variables and controlled experiments. Clearly the virologists have resorted to anti-scientific practices to make their various claims including the foundational claim of virus existence.
It motivated me to write an essay specifically addressing the apical logical fallacy in the cell culture technique – something that has been noticed previously but perhaps not formally expressed. The virologists have claimed they perform control experiments and sometimes describe these as ‘mock-infected’ cultures. In recent months we have also been contacted by people in the ‘no virus’ community asking whether John Enders inadvertently performed a control experiment in his 1954 measles paper. Dr Stefan Lanka exposed the lack of a control experiment in this paper in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in 2016 and I make some further comments expanding on this in note 20.
The pivotal issue is that the virologists do not have an independent variable and their experiments cannot make a hypothetical particle real. The ‘gold standard’ technique for “isolation” cannot possibly determine the presence (or existence) of viruses no matter how they attempt to control it. The paradigm that was created in the 1940s to keep virology alive was dead on arrival because the technique relies on a reification fallacy and logical errors that disqualify the entire process from being scientific.
We have had some feedback that although fairly brief, this paper is difficult to follow in some parts. (It helps to read all the endnotes.) If you have not already seen it, I would recommend watching Kate Sugak’s excellent presentation at the XXII Russian Scientific Conference: “The scientific vacuum: The scientific method and its absence in virology“. Kate covers the crucial scientific considerations articulated in my paper in an easy to follow format and shows that the virologists have nowhere left to hide.
When I discovered this study several years ago and wrote the following extensive piece on it, the study was a bolt from the blue, a complete devastating shocker.
It still is.
It is more than enough to topple the whole vaccine empire.
Honoring the work of the study co-author, Dr. Antonietta Gatti, Catherine Austin Fitts wrote, “Not long after the publication of this revolutionary study, tax authorities raided and investigated Dr. Gatti’s and [her husband] Dr. Montanari’s laboratory and private home—an all too usual method of intimidation.”
THAT was the “scientific follow-up.”
In a nutshell, Dr. Gatti’s 2017 study showed an incredible amount of contamination, in a whole host of traditional vaccines. The contamination was in the form of tiny nanoparticles, mostly metallic, and obviously highly harmful and dangerous.
Before reading my summary and analysis of that study—here is an updated communication from Dr. Gatti I received a few days ago. It describes, in a stark and disturbing fashion, what has been happening to her, her work, and her laboratory. This is chilling:
“At the end of last year, our laboratory no longer had the financial capacity to continue its research. The proceeds from the few analyzes requested by private individuals yielded enormously less than what the research cost us. Then, there were two possibilities: close everything or set up a foundation by giving away everything that belonged to us, hoping to find some sponsors. After all, all initiatives, even the most bizarre, find someone willing to contribute financially. Why not a foundation that does fundamental research on health? So, we opted for the latter choice, and the Nanodiagnostics Foundation was born.”
“But, after almost a year, not a cent has arrived. In short, no company, no private citizen, no institution is willing to contribute.”
“Many people continue to demand results and ask questions to which they have no answers from the institutions or their doctors, but, if it is a question of parting from some money, the silence is absolute.”
“It is clear that our work is a threat to billion-dollar businesses that are not exactly clear, at least for most people. For this reason, the most absurd and incredible slanders are invented to our detriment.
Not being able to dispute our scientific results, there are those who publish, usually anonymously, that we earn enormous sums of money, even giving the impression that the Foundation belongs to us, when it should be known that foundations do not belong to anyone, and no one can profit from them. And this is when we have donated everything that belonged to us, and we work for free.”
“Another tactic is trying to isolate and discredit us with lies. What the University of Bologna did a few days ago, the university where I graduated, then specialized and taught, is a small example.”
“A few months ago, that university asked us if we were willing to accept [a] student… who would prepare her graduation thesis with us. We agreed and agreed with the student on how to proceed. A few months passed, then, a couple of weeks ago, when the University authorities realized that the student would work with us, they sent us a message of a few lines in which they informed us that what we do (and which I had taught at that university) was of no interest to them (which, in a way, is true, although very far from the mission of the University). Needless to say, my letter to the Rector asking for explanations remained unanswered.”
“And it is also useless to say how difficult it is to publish the results that we continue to obtain, and which are not liked by those who financially maintain the medical journals, on whose scientific nature I prefer not to comment. For twice the Editor after the publication of an article (on vaccines and on SIDS) asked to retreat [sic] them. Only the work of the Robert Kennedy Jr lawyers stopped the request.”
“[Paper:] Novel chemical-physical autopsy investigation in sudden infant death and sudden intrauterine unexplained death syndromes” (click here)
“Just for your information, in spite of all difficulties, we are now dealing with very critical topics: spontaneously aborted babies, analysis of the brains of infants who died in cots (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka SIDS), analysis of what falls from the sky (e.g., recently hail never seen before), food, etc. All this can only be fought with personal discredit.”
“We haven’t had any visits from the regime for a long time. For them it is enough to monitor our computers and phones. The rest is done by ‘volunteers’. As for other scientists, no one deals with our topics in full. It must be realized that doing so represents a risk that is obviously preferable not to take.”
“As long as we can manage, we will continue to work. If, however, no sponsor materializes (idle chatter and empty promises are not only useless: they are a waste of time,) we will have no other option than to declare defeat, a defeat that belongs to the whole world and, above all, to the children who do not deserve the fate they are suffering.”
“…I give some details of our Foundation Nanodiagnostics (click here)…”
IF YOU CAN, PLEASE DONATE TO Dr. Gatti’s vital work at the above website.
Here is my original article on Dr. Gatti’s vaccine-contamination study:
Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study
“The Lung,” Second Edition: “Nanoparticles [are] comparable in size to subcellular structures…enabling their ready incorporation into biological systems.”
A 2017 study of 44 types of 15 traditional vaccines, manufactured by leading global companies, has uncovered a very troubling and previously unreported fact:
The vaccines are heavily contaminated with a variety of nanoparticles.
Many of the particles are metals.
We’re talking about traditional vaccines, such as HPV, flu, Swine Flu, Hepatitis B, MMR, DPT, tetanus, etc.
To begin to understand some of the destructive effects of contaminating nanoparticles in vaccines, here is the groundbreaking 2017 study:International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination Volume 4 Issue 1 January 23 2017 New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination Antonietta M Gatti and Stefano Montanari (Paper archived here and here)
“The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines…”
Are the study authors leaving the door open to the possibility that the contamination is intentional?
“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity…they induce an inflammatory reaction.”
“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas…But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect…due to a nano-bio-interaction…can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way…It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA…”
“In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues…”
“Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles…could heavily impair the muscle functionality…”
“We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”
This 2017 study opens up a whole new field: the investigation of nanoparticles in vaccines where none were expected.
Such particles are not medicine in any sense of the word.
Many legal and scientific “experts” assert the State has a right to mandate vaccines and force them on the population. But these contaminating nanoparticles are not vaccines or medicines. Only a lunatic would defend the right of the State to inject them.
Here is another section from the 2017 study. Trade names of vaccines, and compositions of the nanoparticle contaminants are indicated. Take a deep breath and buckle up:
“…further presence of micro-, sub-micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases [all 44 vaccines], whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product…”
“…single particles, cluster of micro- and nanoparticles (less than 100nm) and aggregates…debris of Aluminum, Silicon, Magnesium and Titanium; of Iron, Chromium, Silicon and Calcium particles…arranged in a cluster, and Aluminum-Copper debris…in an aggregate.”
“…the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro).”
“…particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).”
“…singular debris found in Repevax (Silicon, Gold, Silver) and Gardasil (Zirconium).”
“Some metallic particles made of Tungsten or stainless steel were also identified. Other particles containing Zirconium, Hafnium, Strontium and Aluminum (Vivotif, Meningetec); Tungsten, Nickel, Iron (Priorix, Meningetec); Antimony (Menjugate kit); Chromium (Meningetec); Gold or Gold, Zinc (Infarix Hexa, Repevax), or Platinum, Silver, Bismuth, Iron, Chromium (MMRvaxPro) or Lead,Bismuth (Gardasil) or Cerium (Agrippal S1) were also found. The only Tungsten appears in 8/44 vaccines, while Chromium (alone or in alloy with Iron and Nickel) in 25/44. The investigations revealed that some particles are embedded in a biological substrate, probably proteins, endo-toxins and residues of bacteria. As soon as a particle comes in contact with proteic fluids, a nano-bio-interaction…occurs and a ‘protein corona’ is formed…The nano-bio-interaction generates a bigger-sized compound that is not biodegradable and can induce adverse effects, since it is not recognized as self by the body.”
“…examples of these nano-bio-interactions. Aggregates can be seen (stable composite entities) containing particles of Lead in Meningitec… of stainless steel (Iron, Chromium and Nickel…) and of Copper, Zinc and Lead in Cervarix…Similar aggregates, though in different situations (patients suffering from leukemia or cryoglobulinemia), have already been described in literature.”
I’m sure you’ve read official assurances that vaccine-manufacturing problems are “rare.” You can file those pronouncements along with other medical lies.
“I’d like the heavy metal sandwich on rye, please. And instead of serving it on a plate, can you inject it?”
Several vital questions demanding answers spring from the findings of this 2017 study:
Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally placed in vaccines?
Does the standard manufacturing process for traditional vaccines INEVITABLY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
New nano-technology is already being employed to create several vaccines—supposedly “improving effectiveness.” In fact, the RNA COVID-19 vaccine are a nano-type. Does this manufacturing process carry with it the unavoidable effect of unleashing a hurricane of nanoparticle contaminants?
How many cases of childhood brain damage and autism can be laid at the door of nanoparticle contamination?
And finally, where are these contaminated vaccines manufactured? The above study did not attempt to discover this. It was outside the scope of the research. It’s common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the US, vaccines or their components, are, in many instances, not produced domestically. Where does this put control of safety? In, say, China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals connected to contamination of products?
The vaccine establishment does not show the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending the questions don’t exist.
In case you are unable to read them on above links, download from below, both books in PDF. Plus more books on poisonous needles aka vaccines… Uh spare me Fuck them vaccines!
Are you getting bored of listening to the exact same song and dance numbers over and over again? Are the old “viral” bands just not doing it for you anymore? Are you looking for something new and mysterious to come along in order to spice things up a bit and reignite the dwindling levels of fear? If so, then you are in luck as there is a brand new “viral” sensation headed your way!
Introducing Disease X!
“An old adage says, “Prevention is better than cure.” Nothing exemplifies this idea better than “Disease X.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease.”1
Richard Hatchett, chief executive officer (CEO) of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), said about Disease X, “It might sound like science fiction, but Disease X is something we must prepare for.”2 In a list of diseases that the WHO considers high priority in terms of research and development, Disease X occupies a spot among diseases such as Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1Unexpected outbreaks of infectious disease (Disease X) have repeatedly rocked the medical confidence and have taken the medical world by surprise.3
Some experts have even commented that COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), met the standards to be considered the first Disease X,4 while some authors have called Zika a Disease X.5However, one unfortunate possibility is that COVID-19 and other recent pandemics might have been milder versions of what will eventually be the most prominent Disease X.
Disease X is supposed to be caused by a “pathogen X.” Such a pathogen is expected to be a zoonosis, most likely an RNA virus, emerging from an area where the right mix of risk factors highly promotes the risk for sustained transmission.6
Bloody quacks should pay attention ! As most of them the so called @awakened@ were fast asleep and only started scratching the surface once they saw that their “students” were getting upset about their willful ignorance in this regard ! What a pity such “DOCTORS” are – Shame on you ! Yeah you know I… Continue reading Independent researchers find no evidence of mRNA in the COVID injection.
I’ve been asking everyone: Show me the all-cause mortality data proving the vaccines are safe. I finally got some data. It’s from the UK government and it’s devastating. REALLY devastating. Overview New UK government data allows us to analyze the data in a way we couldn’t before. This new analysis shows clearly that the COVID… Continue reading New UK government data shows the COVID vaccines kill more people than they save
