The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka
I remember early on in 2017, when I first started unraveling the “virus” lie through the examination of HIV/AIDS, to being introduced to the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka. If memory serves me correctly, my first encounter was through the brilliant House of Numbers documentary by Brent Leung. I was simply amazed that Dr. Lanka, an ex-virologist, was actually calling out the methods of his own profession. His testimony, along with that of Kary Mullis, the inventor of the misused and abused PCR technique, carried much weight with me in those early days. Their words lent credibility to the argument that the evidence for the existence of HIV and other “viruses” was entirely absent and fraudulent.
During that time of intense research where I was desperately seeking out any and all information that I could find, I fortunately stumbled onto a few of Dr. Lanka’s articles through the VirusMyth.com website. I was engrossed in his work and absorbed much of what he had to say on the subject, especially in regards to the lack of purification and isolation of any “viruses,” the faults of the cell culture method, and the problems related to electron microscope imagery. As it did for many others, Dr. Lanka’s work formed much of the foundation for my understanding of the lies of virology. It is rare to gain such critical insight from someone who was involved in the industry. It is even more rare for someone in his position to set out and actually prove what he was saying correct yet that is exactly what Dr. Lanka has done numerous times.
Without Dr. Lanka’s enormous contributions to unraveling the lies of germ theory, many of us speaking out today may not have been doing so. As his work was instrumental in helping me along on my own journey towards uncovering the truth, I want to highlight what I consider Dr. Lanka’s three biggest contributions to proving the fraud of virology along with many of the papers he has written on the subject. My hope is that you will be able to come away with a greater appreciation for Dr. Lanka’s monumental work, as well as a clearer understanding of the deceptive practices used by virologists.
1. The Measles Trial
Early on in my journey, I found my way to the infamous measles trial saga while researching Dr. Lanka’s work. Back in 2017, it was difficult to find out much accurate information on what had really transpired. For those who are unaware, Dr. Lanka set forth a challenge in his own magazine calling upon anyone to come forward with a single paper providing the scientific evidence which proved the existence of a measles “virus.” If this challenge was met, the person would receive a $100,000 financial reward. A physician named David Bardens came forward with six papers spanning six decades which he claimed together proved the existence of the measles “virus.” Dr. Lanka refused to pay as he specifically requested one publication providing the entire proof necessary. Dr. Bardens sued and while Dr. Lanka lost the initial case in the lower courts, he won on appeal in the higher courts. At the time I originally came upon this story, the internet was (and still is) full of stories claiming that Dr. Lanka lost the case. However, to anyone interested in the truth, it is obvious that those lies do not hold up under scrutiny. Presented below is a great overview of how the events actually played out:
“On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.
In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.
The six publications 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 measles 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– - 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.
Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.
On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.
On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.
Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.
According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a
“methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.”
Click to access Lanka_Bardens_Trial_E.pdf
For an even more in-depth analysis of what really occurred during the trial, I always recommend this article by Feli Popescu, who was actually present during the proceedings:
https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html?m=1
When I think of Dr. Lanka’s work, the measles trial stands out as the most significant moment and the most pivotal accomplishment. We had an epic head-to-head clash between the medical establishment and an ex-virologist taking place in a court of law over the legitimacy of the evidence for the measles “virus.” It was determined through this trial that the foundational paper claiming the existence and isolation of the measles “virus,” the 1954 paper by John Franklin Enders, was unworthy by itself for proving the existence of the “virus.” As all other papers and virology itself owe their evidence to the cell culture methods developed by Enders in that paper, it is an astonishingly damning admission that the evidence presented by virology is invalid.
2. The 7 Steps Proving “Viruses” Don’t Exist
More recently, Dr. Lanka put together what he felt were the main points that bring the house of cards known as virology tumbling down. These 7 steps were formulated over many years of painstaking research into the faults of virology. As he did with the measles trial, Dr. Lanka compiled a very convincing case for why “viruses” do not exist and why virology is a pseudoscience built upon fraudulent foundations.
The 7 steps to prove “viruses” do not exist:
1. Virologists interpret the death of cells in the laboratory as viral. Due to the lack of control attempts (experiments), they overlook the fact that they kill the cells in the laboratory themselves and unintentionally by starving and poisoning the cells. This misinterpretation is based on a single publication by John Franklin Enders and a colleague from June 1, 1954. This publication was ruled by the highest court in Germany in the measles virus trial that it contained no evidence of a virus. This publication became the exclusive basis not only for measles virology,
but for all virology since 1954 and corona hysteria.
2. Virologists mentally assemble the shortest pieces of so-called genetic information from dying cells to form a very long genetic strand, which they output as the genetic strand of a virus. This conceptual/computational process is called alignment. In doing so, they did not make the control attempts, the attempt to conceptually/computationally construct the desired genetic strand even from short pieces of so-called genetic information from non-infected sources.
3. For the alignment of a virus, virologists always need a given genetic strand of a virus. For this, however, they always use a genetically/computationally generated genetic strand and never a real one, one found in reality. In doing so, they never attempt to check whether or not so-called genetic information could also be constructed from the existing data set, including “viral” genetic material strands of completely different viruses.
4. Virologists have never seen or isolated “viruses” in humans, animals, plants or their fluids. They only did it seemingly, indirectly, and only ever by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory. They never mentioned the control attempts or documented whether they succeeded in depicting and isolating viruses in and from humans, animals, plants or their fluids.
5. Virologists have never isolated, biochemically characterized or obtained their supposed genetic material from the supposed viruses that they photograph using electron microscope images. They have never conducted or published control experiments as to whether, after isolating these structures, it was actually possible to detect “viral” proteins (the envelope of the virus) and, above all, the viral genome, which is supposed to be the central component and characteristic of a virus.
6. Virologists report typical artifacts of dying tissue/cells and typical structures that arise when the cell’s own components such as proteins, fats and the solvents used are swirled, as viruses or viral components. Here, too, there are no control experiments with cells/tissues that were not infected but were also treated.
7. The so-called transmission attempts that virologists make to prove the transmission and pathogenicity of the suspected viruses refute the entire virology. Obviously, it is the experiments themselves that trigger the symptoms, which animal experiments provide as evidence of the existence and effectiveness of the suspected viruses. Here, too, there are no control attempts in which exactly the same thing is done, only with non-infected or sterilized materials.
Illustration for # 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJYj4G5qo_E
https://nateserg808.wixsite.com/my-site/post/the-controls
Dr. Lanka explained the 7 steps himself in this short excerpt from an interview with Dr. Tom Cowan where he offered additional insight:
3. The Control Experiments
During this current “pandemic,” Dr. Lanka decided to carry out and recreate for “SARS-COV-2” the control experiments he had done during the measles trial. The experiments were conducted in three phases:
Phase 1 – The cytopathic effect
In the first control experiment, Dr. Stefan Lanka showed that what virologists attribute to the presence of a pathogenic virus can be achieved without infectious material.
Phase 2 – Construction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome
In the second control experiment, Dr. Lanka showed that what virologists call “viral genetic material actually comes from a healthy human tissue.
Phase 3 – Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
In the third control experiment, we show that with the same technique that virologists use and using nucleic acids, which are not from supposedly infectious material but from healthy human tissue, animals and plants, can construct the genome of any “virus.”
Kontrollexperiment Phase 1 – Mehrere Labore bestätigen die Widerlegung der Virologie durch den cytopathischen Effekt
Phase 1: The Cytopathic Effect
Phase 1 of Dr. Lanka’s experiments was designed to show that the cytopathogenic effect, the very criteria used to determine a “virus” is present in a cell culture, can be caused by the experimental conditions themselves without “infectious” material present. The article linked above contains the study by the independent laboratory testing the cytopathogenic effect for Dr. Lanka. It is in German but it can be easily translated into English. However, as it is a rather long study, I wanted to provide my favorite breakdown of the CPE experiments from Dr. Tom Cowan’s excellent book Breaking the Spell:
“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.
In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.
In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.
The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. This included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.
The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”
You can find more on these experiments here:
For Dr. Lanka’s own breakdown of the phase 1 results, please see this interview with Dean Braus:
Phase 2: Construction of the “SARS-CoV-2” genome
Phase two of the control experiments looked to show that the “viral” material in the “SARS-COV-2” genome actually comes from healthy human tissue. Dr. Lanka joined Kate Sugak to discuss the findings in the below video:
You can also read about these experiments here:
Phase 3: Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
Phase 3 was designed to show that by using materials from many different sources (healthy humans, animals, plants, and synthetic nucleic acids), the PCR amplification process can create the genomes for any “virus.” I’ve provided the abstract from the study performed by the independent researchers working with Dr. Lanka to give a short overview of what was found:
Structural analysis of sequence data in virology: An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example
“De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat-nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.
We therefore examined the publication “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.”
To hear Dr. Lanka’s explanation of this phase, please see this excellent interview once again with Kate Sugak:
Dr.’s Sam and Mark Bailey’s Tribute to Dr. Lanka
For an even greater in-depth look at the brilliant work of Dr. Lanka, please see this excellent video tribute by the Bailey’s. From an outline provided by Dr. Mark Bailey, in this 30 minute video they cover:
- Dr. Lanka’s early discoveries that bacteriophages and giant “viruses” are able to be truly isolated but are not pathogenic
- Dr. Lanka’s path as a virologist and the realization that the model was wrong
- How Dr. Lanka spoke out from the very early stages against the HIV/AIDS dogma
- Dr. Lanka’s discovery that the germ theory and disease entity models are incorrect
- A look at Dr. Lanka’s 7 points that refute virology on their own terms
- The 3 phases of the “SARS-CoV-2” control experiments performed in 2021 that were used to refute the “virus” hypothesis
- And the optimism for the future as many of us are now standing on his shoulders to spread the knowledge he has given us
Stefan Lanka: “Virus, It’s Time To Go.”
The Road Less Traveled
Sadly, it is often a lonely road for anyone willing to break away from tradition and speak out about the troubling state of their chosen profession, especially in a field with ties to a highly lucrative pharmaceutical conglomerate. More often than not, anyone who is willing to sound the alarm has their work smeared and their reputations tarnished by colleagues and the mainstream media in order to discredit the information and the charges that have been brought forth. We are fortunate enough that there were a few brave men and women who were able to see through the indoctrination of their training and push through the often painful cognitive dissonance which comes with having to change long held beliefs ingrained from birth.
Dr. Lanka helped to pave the path against virology and many of us are walking in his footsteps today. His refutation of the germ theory paradigm using their own history and methods was highly influential to myself and others. His status as an ex-virologist not only gave him an invaluable insiders look at the fraud the field is entrenched in but also the clout necessary for those hesitant about the information shared to actually listen up and to start asking the hard questions themselves. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Lanka for his trailblazing work. Without his herculean efforts, I highly doubt that we would be able to attack this fraudulent field as successfully as we are able to do so now.
Essential Reading:
I wanted to provide a list of Dr. Lanka’s work which I consider essential reading for anyone questioning the germ theory lies and/or looking to gain more knowledge of the foundational problems that the field of virology is built upon. Many of these were sources I read initially in my own journey which I found extremely helpful in broadening my own understanding. I am positive that this list will be a benefit to others as well:
Dr. Stefan Lanka Debunks Pictures of Isolated “Viruses”
Dr Stefan Lanka Debunks Pictures of “Isolated Viruses”
HIV Pictures: What They Really Show
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data2/slvirusphotos.htm
HIV: Reality or Artefact?
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/slartefact.htm
INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA: Challenging BOTH Mainstream and Alternative AIDS Views
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mcinterviewsl.htm
100 Responses
kordelas kordelas
“Guidelines for Safeguarding
Good Research Practice
Code of Conduct”
https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/rechtliche_rahmenbedingungen/gute_wissenschaftliche_praxis/kodex_gwp_en.pdf
reante
Frankly I find Lanka’s ‘experiments’ to be, by definition, one big hoax. A person who does not believe in nucleic acids is not entitled to experiment with them and expect to come to any true conclusions in Reality. Obviously, lol.
Stefan, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Stop being a phony. If you don’t believe in nucleic acids, make an actual case for that and move on to real things that you do believe in. That’s what adults call being constructive.
kordelas kordelas
FYI Lanka used methods created and used by scientism cultists against them.
Yes, methods with alleged nucleic acids too.
So do a proper research next time and start being critically constructive.
Also Stefan has done his job and is working on his other subject of interest.
Mike Stone
That is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Why should Dr. Lanka not be able to use virology’s own methods to disprove it? He was a virologist at one point and fully believed in the lie. He is allowed to debunk it using the knowledge he aquired.
reante
Because that’s like an atheist using biblical doctrine to criticize Christianity. Or a protestant using doctrine to criticize Catholicism. It’s just political noise. Both are cheap shots to the spiritual man. Stefan focuses on the minutiae of virology because he can parlay one sellout career into another — from bigshot virologist to bigshot dissident viroligist who still talks out of his ass lol — what’s the fucking difference? And his ‘flat-earthing’ of reality has no substance so he has very little to say about the terrain. I fail to see what he offers after one has been red-pilled about virology for about six months. The dude’s good for about six months. Then he’s old news.
Mike Stone
It is not cheap to use the methods of a discipline to disprove it. As I said, Dr. Lanka was a firm believer in the methods until he saw the fraud for himself. That does not then disqualify him from using those same methods to show everyone else the fraud. Your argument is utter nonsense.
reante
Lanka is fraudulently exposing the fraud because he makes declarative statements — and arguments — about nucleic acids that he doesn’t believe in. That’s what conmen do. Like I said he went from one fraud to another. The spiritual man refuses fraudulence at all costs. The ‘worldly’ man is a fraudulent man. The man that jumps from fraud to fraud is a shapeshifter.
kordelas kordelas
What statement of his own did Lanka make about nucleic acids?
You are a liar and a fraud, reante. You can’t even defend your lousy arguments.
Mike Stone
Where did Dr. Lanka say that he dies not believe in nucleic acids? Why does disbelieving in something disqualify one from critiquing and disproving it? I do not believe in “viruses” so does that disqualify me from criticizing the available evidence? As I said, your argument is utter nonsense.
reante
Lanka SAYS he believes in nucleic acids but he doesn’t believe in genes. Yet he says chromosomes must exist (for obvious hereditary and continuity reasons). Yet chromosomes have hundreds or thousands of genes in them. He refers to chromosomes as “coarse templates” or something like that – that they are highly changeable. It’s like he wants to have it both ways. Can you explain that to me PC?
He appears to believe that RNA are intracellular only when they’re that, intercellular, and horizontal across organisms. And horizontal gene transfer is the basis of ‘virology,’ which is just exosomal proteomics twisted to be made out to be a pathogenic phenomenon instead of an evolutionary one.
So effectively — for all intents and purposes — he doesn’t believe in nucleic acids as they exist; not only are our cells primordial soups, the planet is a soup for primordial transfer. He doesn’t believe that an RNA can enter a cell from outside it so therefore all his dissident examinations of virology are meaningless and self-serving because he’s wrong about that. Everything can just be cell debris. It’s fraudulent argumentation. Reactionary, just like Poornima and you, Mike, except Lanka is ‘modified flat-earthing’ the terrain whereas you guys are full flat-earthing it. Maybe Mike your ‘modified’ too, I don’t know. Do you?
Lanka appears to believe we live in chromosomal isolation other than with respect to vertical gene transfer (which his “coarse” template theory is an inadequate explanation for).
Lanka pissed me off for saying that the mRNA vaxxxes can only make you sick for about three weeks and anything that happens to you after that that is vaxxx related is just psychosomatic trauma from the vaxxx experience. That’s some fuckin horseshit GNM condescension right there. And it’s irresponsible. What about the people who were all fired-up about getting vaxxxed and went down beyond three weeks? He acts like he knows that the mRNA in the vaxxxes aren’t inside the nanolipids. What about second-order (domino) effects from detoxing those heinous offgassings after three weeks for chrissake?
Where are the justifications for these ideas? When DNA is extracted from things and you can see the strings, what does he say these are – temporary chromosomes? GMOs must not exist for him of course, because the chromosomes are too unstable.
Mike Stone
“He acts like he knows that the mRNA in the vaxxxes aren’t inside the nanolipids.”
Oh gee…maybe he says this because there is NO EVIDENCE that mRNA is in there nor that it does anything if injected in the body. 🤷♂️
It’s theoretical BS.
reante
That’s not true from what Lanka says. He says that the ‘spikes’ can be found in vaxxxed and unvaxxxed alike which means he can’t know whether there are vaxxx ‘spikes.’ Yet he says the nanolipids aren’t vehicles for the mRNA, that if there is mRNA they are free in the solution. On what grounds?
Mike Stone
Where is he saying all of this?
reante
In that pdf paper PC posted about ten days ago.
Mike Stone
It seems from this interview, Dr. Lanka does believe in nucleic acid and mRNA. So I guess by your criteria, he is fit to criticize it. 🤷♂️
“Well, from 1954 onwards, the model for virologists to follow was that of bacterial phages, which have been isolated and found to always have a nucleic acid with the same structure and length. Virologists hoped to be able to isolate viruses in the same way as phages but this has never been
achieved. Bacterial phages and the misnamed ‘giant viruses’ – like the one I first isolated 30 years ago – are mini-spores and have nothing to do with the model viruses that virologists have developed.”
“It’s been almost 70 years that the world has believed in molecular genetics and the role of nucleic
acid as a storehouse of hereditary information, but it turns out that its role is a different one: the generation of energy in all living organisms.”
“According to the prevailing theory, the messenger RNA injected with the vaccine triggers an immune system response that produces antibodies, and immunity is achieved within 3-6 months. This is the theory, but the reality is that it is not the mRNA that triggers the body’s so-called immune reaction – i.e. the generation of antibodies – but the nanoparticles. The body produces globulin to repair and rebuild tissues, nerves and blood vessels damaged by the nanoparticles and this is misinterpreted as the body’s immune response. The tiny globules flatten and intertwine in the affected area and create new tissue to repair the damage; they are proteins that repair and rebuild tissue.”
“The mRNA itself causes less of an inflammatory reaction compared to the latter. A small part of the mRNA can penetrate our chromosomes with as yet little studied long term consequences, and can enter sperm cells, ovaries or placenta causing infertility, miscarriages or malformations. In the short term, nanoparticles are more dangerous and are responsible for thrombi. In fact, they are not even declared as active substances, but are defined as “adjuvants”, i.e. auxiliary substances
that help the real, active substance (mRNA) to penetrate into the nucleus of cells. Nanoparticles are extremely aggressive and cannot be broken down chemically, so the body gets rid of them very slowly – if at all – and they cause inflammation throughout the body if the muscle is unable to absorb the injection and its contents reach nerves or blood vessels directly.”
“The mRNA vaccine contains a large number of dangerous nanoparticles, and no matter how much mRNA or what sequence it has, the result is always destructive. Extending the above explanation, some of the mRNA may be transformed into DNA, which can damage the nuclei of cells. If these are in the reproductive organs, they can cause infertility or damage to the foetus. The risk of the long term damage due to mRNA turning into DNA may be lower than with DNA vector vaccines, but the amount of nanoparticles that can themselves cause mechanical damage throughout the body is much higher.”
“Nanoparticles are used as vehicles for transporting mRNA from the injection site in the muscle to the nuclei of cells throughout the body. These nanoparticles are highly toxic because they have a very high surface area to volume ratio and accelerate chemical reactions. This acceleration of processes is called catalysis, and their toxic effect on the body is persistent because the body breaks them down and eliminates them very slowly – if at all. Nanoparticles cause damage to the circulatory system, nervous system, brain and liver. The combined effect of mRNA and nanoparticles increases the toxicity that these substances already have separately. The increased combined effects of both substances have a negative effect on those parts of the body where they end up randomly and unpredictably, but this
problem is trivialised and both the individual effects of these substances and their combined effects are then interpreted as “side effects” of the vaccine.”
https://ia804509.us.archive.org/31/items/stefan-lanka-viruses-are-not-microbes-and-have-no-infectious-capacity-iii-of-iii-dsalud/Stefan%20Lanka%20%22Viruses%20are%20not%20microbes%20and%20have%20no%20infectious%20capacity%22%20%28III%20of%20III%29%20DSalud.pdf
I will say Dr. Lanka has a similar problem to you sometimes which is making statements about how these theoretical entities work without any scientific evidence backing it up. You both subscribe to different stories for how unobservable processes work.
reante
Yeah good find Mike. The dude’s all over the map. In the pdf I’ve been referring to he says the free floating mRNA gets broken down in three days and doesn’t do shit, yet in this quote here he’s basically saying that they do pretty much what the establishment says they’re doing lol. And here he also clearly implies that the nanoparticles can have lasting effects well beyond three weeks. His insights have some interest value but the dude’s a mess. And him saying that the mRNA can “penetrate the chromosomes” is pure mainstream genomics yet he’s just using modified flat-earth Lanka-speak by saying chromosomes so as to avoid saying genetic modification lol; and this genetic modification is despite him saying in the other paper that chromosomes are “coarse templates” that are always changing, which would presumably render impossible a hard genetic modification like he’s talking about in this quote you posted.
And he says in this quote that the nanolipids are considerably worse for you than the mRNA yet he says the mRNA getting into reproductive cells cause infertility and foetal damage lol. The guy’s a mess.
Mike Stone
He may be all over the place. I have not followed much of his recent statements on genomics as I’ve been too busy. It would be nice to have sources for the claims Dr. Lanka makes. But this is the problem with creating theories around unobservable processes. No one can see nor witness what happens and stories are created in order to explain what one thinks happens. Everyone has their own version of events, none of which are backed up by studies adhering to the scientific method. It amounts to nothing more than whose story do you like best.
reante
Well I appreciate you not doing the political loyalty thing.
I don’t agree with your relativistic take though. True patterning is an earned greatness no different from the true patterning of any sport that turns out a great athlete. Lanka’s patterning is a mess and compromised by the disillusionment of a former virologist, just like Poornima. Jilted lover syndrome prevents clear thinking.
Refusing to pattern at all is even worse.
kordelas kordelas
So when are you going to use standards like logic, scientific method and shared human experience to think clearly?
If not those, do you have anything better?
reante
You run along now kk
kordelas kordelas
Do not make yourself the laughingstock even more.
reante
It would be nice to have sources if that’s what’s necessary to flesh out his modified flat-earthism. He mentions Hamer in the other paper, and there were a couple footnote numbers but they weren’t active in my app anyway. That said I don’t need sources if theyre his own (cursory) insights because truth is judged on its own merits.
kordelas kordelas
So far your globe-earthism is still a fairy tale.
kordelas kordelas
Where does Lanka say anything you wrote?
Appears does not mean he is or he does.
Has Lanka specified if his statement about “mRNA” is a speculation or scientific fact?
What GMO really is? I do not ask about a narrative about it.
davidonsocialmedia
@reante
Could you expand a bit on what you mean or are describing when you say ‘flat-earthing the terrain’
PC
Dr Stefan Lanka believes ? Really? The arrogance of your emotional presumptions. Wonder if you also write for fact-checkers?
Do your homework and a bit of research.
Maybe check out some of the articles on wissenschaftplus and the videos on Immanuel project and then we can engage in some constructive debate.
reante
PC, if you have a problem with me detailing Lanka’s obvious shortcomings in these writings then say why. Otherwise you’re just fronting.
If you have some specific content you want to post then post it and I’ll check it out.
PC
Great article Mike and also Dr Sam Bailey ‘s video .🙏
Thanks to Dr Lanka and the people before him who never gave up against all the odds. We got a better understanding of biology .
Not worth engaging with ignorance ( there is a difference between genetics and nucleic acid research ) and vitriolic comments with no constructive criticisms or contribution but some nefarious agenda.
https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/43943648/Biology_after_Hamer_-_Nucleic_Acid_Research.pdf?_gl=1*1hvdz5*_ga*MTIzMTkzOTQ4OC4xNjI1NzM1OTcw*_ga_T49FMYQ9FZ*MTY2MDY3NDgyOS4xMTk5LjAuMTY2MDY3NDgyOS4w
Jeffrey Strahl
Excellent job putting forth Stefan Lanka’s analysis, Mike! Judging by the comments of some people here, the 9/11 researchers who used the official story’s data regarding WTC7 showing that even if this data were accepted as true they would still not support the official account (i.e. the August 21, 2008 report, with an addendum on November 1, 2008) had no right to do so since they didn’t think these data were valid. I had to learn the hard way to simply not engage some people. 🙂
Mike Stone
Thanks Jeffrey! I definitely agree with your sentiment. There is a point where it is useless engaging with some who are seemingly devoid of logic.
Mary-Ann
You make a great work Mr. Stone! Thank you!! I think you already know this, but others may not – NO so-called virus, but endogenous cells(sick, dying parts) The Smoking Gun? Study Shows “Virus” Is Identical to Normal Cell “Structures”, By Tom Cowan on June 10, 2021 https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/the-smoking-gun#_ftn1
Mike Stone
Thank you Mary-Ann for the kind words and the link! 🙂
George
Thanks for compiling this information Mike. I am very happy to have access to it in one place. The only problem I have now is getting people to read it. People are pathetically lazy. They do not want to think. And when they have to think, they only want to think what other people tell them to think. For some reason people feel safe in cults and scared to death when they’re alone. I, for my part, feel safe when I’m alone, and scared to death when I’m even around a cult.
People like to be with people that think and act like they do. This is also why there are different political parties and different religions. I’ve given up on the people that think viruses are real. They’ve been hypnotized and I’m not going to waste my time trying to get them to snap out of it. It’s like they’ve been put into an induced mental coma. I’m going to spend my time talking to people who want to think rather than being told what to think. I’m looking for open minded people not mental zombies.
And then there’s the issue of people who know the truth but choose to go along with the lie so they can stay in the cult, keep their jobs and their standard of living. The worst people are the ones who demand that other people take vaccines. These people are no different than the Nazis. They claim they have a good motive, but I don’t buy it. So there is bitter enmity between myself and them. Sorry to end on a bad note, but that’s how it is.
Mike Stone
Very well said 👏
miker
There’s so much that resonates in your post. Here’s a possibly relevant point for our current situation/times: There was a university study some years ago (USC I think), where the test group was given some new information that required them to challenge the generally accepted view like the world flat, (or round) or, viruses don’t actually exist etc. and asked to believe it..It required a paradigm shift.
‘The study found this: 50% believed the new information immediately- without thinking. 30% rejected the new information immediately-without thinking.
15% wanted to wait awhile while they made up there minds, but asked for no clarification or more info. 5% analyzed all the details, studied the info. carefully, and finally came to a conclusion.
The results of the study go like this; It’s estimated the 5% of the people think, 15% of the people think they think, and 80% of the people would rather die than think.’
I hope and pray we’re looking for more than the 5 percenters…
reante
Ain’t that the truth, miker. It’s like the tacit evangelical christian acknowledgement that only 20pc of the people in the pews are christians and 50pc are there on business.
George
The information from the study is useful. This convinces me that most people are relying on their instincts when they form an opinion about the Covid injections. The coercion from the governments and corporations will obviously tip many people to go against their instincts. Others are simply going to weigh the risks – is the risk from the virus greater or is the risk from the vaccine? So this must be how they “think.”
PC
I would add tow links.
This one explains why some people get it and other don’t.
Normal thinking Is limited in the perception of everything.
8 min.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W7SMq5pJ1-U
And came across this short Carl Sagan clip today.
Carl Sagan. Who is running science and technology?
CARL SAGAN: GOVERNMENTS WILL USE IGNORANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE
2 min.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bCMpiMtow55P/
Cal Crilly
I will just say on the HIV subject that I have well over a hundred HIV tagged friends who have been alive for years and some decades with AIDS drugs and I have been in a chat group for a year with around 20 HIV tagged pregnant African ladies or mothers who all have HIV negative partners, some of the mothers have become HIV negative after having their babies. The HIV test clearly cross react with retroviruses that appear in the placenta as part of the pregnancy process. Syncytins being the main ones there.
But ‘retroviruses’ is probably a misnomer when they clearly are RNA packages with functions and do a lot of cell fusions in the body.
Whatever the complexity of arguing over what HIV is, the claim about cross reacting with HIV tests and then dying because you are positive is a fraud.
In my opinion HIV is a ‘retrovirus’ that fuses HLA-DR markers on cells to immune cells like t-cells and macrophages in a process of cell tagging, as HLA-DR genes alert the immune cells to remove the cell.
HLA-DR being an alert to immune cells that the cell is damaged.
HLA-DR markers appear in pre-eclampsia and many South Africans when pregnant either due to diet, genetics, heat exposure or lack of sunlight have higher levels of pre-eclampsia.
The rest of the HIV pandemic over there is guided by over-testing of pregnant women and extrapolating an epidemic from the results in pregnancy centres.
This study years ago is what drew my attention to the HLA-DR cross reaction problems.
I have way more studies that indicate this may be the cause of positivity.
‘Antigen p24 was localized to HLA-DR positive cells that morphologically resembled macrophages in areas of villitis.’
‘Cryostat sections of human normal term placentae were studied for evidence of immunopathology by using antibodies to lymphocytes, macrophages, platelets, and coagulation factors. Areas of so-called chronic villitis of unestablished etiology were identified in all placentae. The same tissues were examined for HIV protein antigens gp120, p17, p24, and gp41. No evidence for gp41 was found. Antigens gp120 and p17 were identified in normal chorionic villi in vimentin-positive fibroblast-like cells and in endothelium, respectively. Antigen p24 was localized to HLA-DR positive cells that morphologically resembled macrophages in areas of villitis. The distribution of gp120 and p17 was similar to that observed for tissue factor. These findings prompted speculation that retroviral proto-oncogenes that are known to encode for certain placental receptors could be involved in the presentation of tissue factor, and that gp120 may be a hitherto unrecognized immunobiological mechanism for the blockade of CD4 on maternal lymphocytes if and when such cells gain entrance to chorionic villi.’
HIV proteins in normal human placentae https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1930645/
Leave some more anyone can follow…
“During preliminary experiments to establish the proportion of virus-coded p24 protein to virus membrane-associated HLA-DR in gradient-enriched HIV-1 preparations, we became aware of a large variability between experiments. In order to determine whether HLA-DR-containing cellular material was contaminating the virus preparations, we carried out enrichment by gradient centrifugation of clarified supernatants from noninfected cells and tested this material for HLA-DR content. We found that, independently of the cell type used, gradient enrichment resulted in the isolation of large quantities of HLA-DR-containing material which banded at a density overlapping that of infectious HIV.”
Cell Membrane Vesicles Are a Major Contaminant of Gradient-Enriched Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type-1 Preparations http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682297984531
‘The evaluation of the presence of p24 antigen on the membrane of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 31 HIV infected individuals is presented.’ …
‘Cases showing p24 Ag on peripheral blood mononuclear cells also presented percentages of CD3, HLA-DR positive cells significantly higher than p24 negative ones.’
Detection of the HIV p24 antigen on lymphocyte membranes using flow cytometry https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1363372/
This is Gallo’s study where he claimed p24 was a cancer marker, and if you look closely at HLA-DR markers, when they appear on cancer cells you have a better chance of survival as the immune system then recognises the cancer cells and removes them.
“Circulating immune complexes from two patients with human T-cell leukaemia/ lymphoma virus (HTLV)-related lymphoma were shown to contain the major internal antigen of the virus, p24.
The amount of complex-bound p24 in sequential serum samples correlated roughly with tumour cell mass.
Small amounts of complex-bound p24 were detected in samples before a relapse became clinically manifest.
Measurement of complex-bound p24 in patients with HTLV-associated lymphomas and leukaemias might thus be helpful in management of malignancies and offer the possibility of detecting imminent relapse and preventing it by intensification of treatment.”
DEMONSTRATION OF VIRAL ANTIGEN p24 IN CIRCULATING IMMUNE COMPLEXES OF TWO PATIENTS WITH HUMAN T-CELL LEUKAEMIA/LYMPHOMA VIRUS (HTLV) POSITIVE LYMPHOMA …Feb 1984
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2884%2990358-1/abstract
p24: A HUMAN LEUKEMIA-ASSOCIA TED AND LYMPHOHEMOPOIETI C PROGENITOR CELL SURFACE STRUCTURE IDENTIFIED WITH MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY 1981
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237754339_p24_A_HUMAN_LEUKEMIA-ASSOCIA_TED_AND_LYMPHOHEMOPOIETI_C_PROGENITOR_CELL_SURFACE_STRUCTURE_IDENTIFIED_WITH_MONOCLONAL_ANTIBODY
‘A monoclonal antibody (SJ-9A4) to P24 present on common alls, neuroblastomas and platelets – I. Characterization and development of a unique radioimmunometric assay 1983
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6578390/
‘The release of the P24 antigen into the culture medium by a C-ALL cell line maintained at 37 degrees C could be detected; however, no P24 antigen was present in the culture medium when the cells were maintained at 4 degrees C. Sequential analysis of the culture medium for soluble P24 antigen revealed that release of the P24 antigen associated with cell growth. Molecular sieve chromatography of concentrated culture medium indicated that shed P24 antigen was eluted in the macromolecule fraction. P24 antigen was detected in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of four patients with P24 positive ALL at the time of relapse of the central nervous system (CNS) and was undetectable while in complete remission. The CSF from three patients with P24 negative ALL and three patients with aseptic meningitis had no detectable activity.’
Shedding of leukemia-associated P24 antigen by lymphoblastoid cell lines 1987
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2447310/
Always look for the functions and avoid thinking of viruses as viruses, what are we measuring and what could the measuring mean?
Viruses as a name automatically labels whatever we see as disease causing.
Influenza and measles in my books are just attachment strands for bacteria.
Herpes and papilloma ‘viruses’ look like they are endogenous and herpes is used by the immune system to break up collagen and papilloma seems to dump collagen on like concrete to stop things like squamous cancers spreading.
Pox diseases could be seen as massive angiogenesis events that have gone out of control with multiple causes, poisoning and radiation being co-factors.
My thoughts.
reante
Interesting Cal. What do you mean by attachment strands for bacteria? And what the function of them and the bacteria?
And regarding poxes. These out of control surface blood vessel build-outs, are you saying they’re not in service of an emergency skin detox but rather the body going haywire?
Catherine
Mike,
Another excellent article.
As a historical footnote, a 2007 review in Annals of Neurology, based on previously sealed Nobel Committee archives, revealed Enders, curiously, was awarded the 1954 Nobel Prize as a result of Sven Gard effectively overriding the established nomination process by lobbying for the substitution of Enders to replace the Nobel Committee’s original recommendee, Vincent du Vigneaud. Co-awardees Weller and Robbins also were selected in anomalous fashion.
Gard’s 8/14/1954 Nobel award ceremony speech offers insights into his rationale.
His key role in single-handedly promoting and effecting the 1954 Nobel Prize award to Enders, Weller and Robbins helped contribute indirectly to the perpetuation of virology pseudoscience; the transition to the post-1954 “genetic virology” model that replaced the “protein toxin” model (disproved in 1951 according to Dr. Lanka); and all of the “genetic virology” model’s subsequent harms. For that, Gard deserves special recognition.
.
4/27/07 – Annals of Neurology: “Polio and Nobel prizes: looking back 50 years” by Erling Norrby, Stanley B. Prusiner
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/
“…In 1954, John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discovery of the ability of poliomyelitis viruses to grow in cultures of various types of tissue.”5370 …. By searching previously sealed Nobel Committee archives, we were able to review the deliberations that led to the award. It appears that Sven Gard, who was Professor of Virus Research at the Karolinska Institute and an adjunct member of the Nobel Committee at the time, played a major role in the events leading to the awarding of the Prize. It appears that Gard persuaded the College of Teachers at the Institute to decide not to follow the recommendation by their Nobel Committee to give the Prize to Vincent du Vigneaud. Another peculiar feature of the 1954 Prize is that Weller and Robbins were included based on only two nominations submitted for the first time that year….”
.
8/14/1954 Nobel award ceremony speech by Sven Gard.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1954/ceremony-speech/
.
4/2020
http://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/The-Initiators-of-the-Corona-Crisis-Have-Been-Clearly-Identified.pdf
“…A Nobel Prize and its disastrous consequences…
The virologists who maintain the existence of disease-causing viruses refer to a single publication [translator’s note: https://pubmedinfo.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/propagation-in-tissue-cultures-of-cytopathogenic-agents-from-patients-with-measles.pdf%5D to justify their actions and pass them off as science, this is easily recognisable as mind-bogglingly unscientific. The papers published on the 1st June 1954 explicitly describe the authors’ observations as speculations and that these speculations would need verification in the future. On the 10th December 1954 the lead author of the study, John Franklin Enders received the Nobel Prize for a different speculation within the old “viruses are dangerous protein toxins” theory (refuted in 1951!), and this Nobel Prize achieved two things: the old, disproved toxin-virus theory was given a pseudo-scientific halo and the new genetic-virology was given the highest, supposed scientific honour. this in turn made sure that verification of the aforementioned measles publication never took place…
…Enders, his colleagues and indeed everyone else have overlooked – dazzled by the Nobel Prize – that the death of cells in the laboratory is not induced by a virus. rather, the cells in the laboratory are systematically and unintentionally killed without anyone realising that this is what they are doing! The cells are killed with cell-toxic antibiotics, through extreme starvation by withdrawing the nutrient solution and through the addition of decomposing proteins that release toxic metabolic products…”
.
Keep up the good work!
All the best.
Mike Stone
Thankf for the kind words and the links Catherine! I appreciate it. 🙂
reante
Catherine regarding the last quote I find it very hard to believe that virologists are unintentionally killing cells by subjecting cultures to extreme starvation and overdosing them on antibiotics without realizing it. While their work is rendered culturally idiotic due to their confirmation bias, it obviously doesn’t mean that they can’t tell that food withdrawal causes stress, it just means that they withdraw food in order to weaken the cellular terrain so that the ‘viral pathogens’ can proliferate.
Cal Crilly
Typo, should be without… ‘I will just say on the HIV subject that I have well over a hundred HIV tagged friends who have been alive for years and some decades without AIDS drugs’
reante
This study suggests that of heavily vaxxxed countries, Israeli fertility has by far been least affected. Things that make you go hmmm.
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/2/frontlinenews/study-concludes-womens-fertility-harmed-in-vaccinating-countries/
kordelas kordelas
Heavily vaccinated with what?
What exactly was injected into each individual?
What about other factors?
George
The virus myth is reinforced every day with stupid articles like this one.
How much virus does a person with COVID exhale? New research has answers
“One ‘superspreader’ with Omicron shed 1,000 times as much viral RNA as those with Alpha or Delta.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02202-z
Mike Stone
All one needs to do is read the study limitations to see through this ridiculousness:
“Our study has several limitations. Although we recruited throughout the pandemic, our sample size for each variant and subvariant was relatively small. As a result, we were limited in making comprehensive comparisons such as the correlation between EBA viral RNA load and culture positivity for specific variants. Although we were able to sample children infected with the Omicron variant, our sample size was too small to make any conclusions about viral aerosol shedding from children. The EBA collection procedure is not suitable for children under age 6 years. Lastly, we did not sample participants throughout their entire infection. Because viral loads in aerosol samples were low, we opted for a sensitive but non-quantitative measure of infectiousness. Thus, we were unable to assess the impact of variants and Omicron subvariants on the duration of viral aerosol shedding and infectious virus titres in EBA.”
Sadly, most do not read these limitations (if listed) and will not see that the sample size was small, the “viral” loads were low, and they could not quantify how much infectious “virus” was present. All they did was detect RNA using faulty PCR tests. As usual, the study did not use any proper controls.
George
Here is an article from mainstream news that grossly misrepresents the capabilities of electron microscopy when applied to biological material.
44 Mind-Blowing Pictures Of Ordinary Creatures Under An Electron Microscope
https://allthatsinteresting.com/electron-microscope-images
tomibacsi
If there is no contagion, why are chickenpox or measles parties successful? Surely, it’s not 100% successful and not all kids will get it, but as far as I know, it does work in a large percentage of cases. Whereas, if there is no contagion, it should work at all.
Statistically it’s almost impossible that if a kid with chickenpox comes to our house with a bunch of other kids, and a number of kids just happen to contract chickenpox over the next week.
I accept that the combination of toxicity, nutrition, EMF and various stress factors will cause the various illnesses, but if none of the kids contracted this illness the weeks, months or years before and just happened to contract it right after the chickenpox party, that’s just way too much of a coincidence. (not a statistician, but adding up all these happenings, we’re talking 1 in billions of chances)
Is it possible that there is something else that’s causing contagion? (if we take out viruses as a possibility) Perhaps on an energetic level…I don’t know. Would love to have your thoughts on this.
Mike Stone
“If there is no contagion, why are chickenpox or measles parties successful?”
The problem with chickenpox and measles parties is that the stories are all anecdotal. There are no studies which actually show this transmission of these diseases from one kid to another. There were studies done in the early 1900’s which were actually unsuccessful in transferring these diseases to children:
CHICKENPOX:
“Hess and Unger failed to produce varicella in normal children by inoculating them upon the mucous membranes of the nose and throat with vesicle lymph and material collected from the nose and throat of patients with chicken-pox, or by inoculating them intracutaneously, subcutaneously, or intravenously with fresh vesicle lymph.”
Source: (doi:10.1001/archpedi.1918.01910130041005)
SHINGLES (said to be the same “virus”):
“Several observers (Lipschiitz, Meineri, and others) have made isolated
attempts to inoculate human volunteers with herpes zoster, but always with negative results.”
Source: (doi: 10.1084/jem.42.6.799.)
For more evidence of failure to transmit these diseases to animals, please see this article:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/10/chickenpox-shingles-no-transmission/
MEASLES:
This is from Daniel Roytas’s research on measles:
“In 1817, Themmen undertook five experiments where he exposed incisions on the arms of healthy children with the blood, tears and perspiration of infected children. None of the children contracted measles.
In 1799, Dr. Green reported that he successfully infected three children by exposing them to the fluid of measles scabs, however there are no reliable records on this(1).
In 1801, Chapman repeatedly tried to infect healthy people with measles by exposing them to the blood, tears, nasal mucous, lung fluid and the discharge from measles scabs, however none of the participants became sick(1).
In 1809, Willan tried to infect three children by exposing them to the fluid of measles lesions from sick people. None of the children became sick(1).
In 1810, Waschel claimed to have experimentally infected an 18-year-old man with measles, however these claims were disputed by others at the time. The man became sick 22 days after inoculation and it is said the man actually contracted measles naturally and not from the inoculation(1).
In 1822, Dr. Frigori tried to infect 6 children with measles. Whilst the children developed mild non-specific symptoms, they did not develop measles. Not happy with his results, Frigori attempted to infect himself but without success(1).
In 1822, Dr. Negri tried to infect two children with measles, however he had the same negative results as Dr. Frigori.
In 1822, Speranza attempted to infect 4 children using similar methods, but without success(1).
In 1834, Albers tried to infect four children with measles, however none fell ill(1).
Between 1845 – 1851 Mayr is said to have successfully infected 6 children with measles, however it seems to be a modified form of the disease (in other words, not measles)(1).
In 1890, Hugh Thompson tried to infect children with measles in two separate instances, however both attempts failed(1).
In 1905, Ludvig Hektoen reports that he was able to successfully infect two healthy people with the blood of infected measles patients(1). It should be noted that the blood was mixed with other substances, such as ascites fluid before it was injected. This experiment is considered to be the best evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the measles virus causes disease(2). There are few specific details about the signs and symptoms that these patients actually exhibited, so there is some doubt as to whether they really had measles(3).
In 1915, Charles Herman swabbed the nasal mucosa of 40 infants with cotton buds covered in the nasal secretions of infected measles patients. The majority of the infants had no reaction, 15 infants had a slight rise in body temperature and a “few” were said to develop some red spots on their skin. At 1 year of age, 4 of these infants had intimate contact with infected people. None of the infants became sick and this is said to be due to the infants having “immunity”(4).
In 1919, Sellards tried to inoculate 8 healthy men (with no previous exposure to measles) with the blood of measles patients, using the same methods as Hektoen. None of the men became sick(3,5). A few weeks later, the volunteers were exposed to an infected measles case, yet none of them became sick. Nasal secretions were then taken from measles patients and syringed up in to the nasal passages of the healthy participants. None became sick(3,5).
Sellards also conducted another experiment to try and infect another 2 healthy human volunteers with measles by injecting them subcutaneously and intramuscularly with the blood of two infected patients. Neither man became sick(3,5).
In 1919, Alfred Hess makes a comment about Sellards results. He states “It is remarkable that Sellards was unable to produce this highly infectious disease by means of the blood or nasal secretions of infected individuals, not long ago I was confronted with a similar experience with chicken pox, thus we are confronted with two diseases, the two most infectious of the endemic diseases in this part of the world, which we are unable to transmit artificially from man to man”(6).
In 1924, Harry Bauguess wrote a paper and stated “A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood stream of another person and produced measles(7)”.
References:
1. Hektoen L. Experimental Measles. J Infect Dis. 1905;2(2):238-255. doi:10.1093/infdis/2.2.238
2. Degkwitz R. The Etiology of Measles. J Infect Dis. 1927;41(4):304-316. doi:10.1093/infdis/41.4.304
3. SELLARDS AW. A REVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE ETIOLOGY OF MEASLES. Medicine (Baltimore). 1924;3(2):99-136. doi:10.1097/00005792-192403020-00001
4. Herman C. Immunization against measles. Arch Pediat. 1915;32(503).
5. Sellards A. Insusceptibility of man to inoculation with blood from measles patients. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1919;257.
6. Hess AF. NEED OF FURTHER RESEARCH ON THE TRANSMISSIBILITY OF MEASLES AND VARICELLA. J Am Med Assoc. 1919;73(16):1232. doi:10.1001/jama.1919.0261042006002
7. BAUGUESS H. MEASLES TRANSMITTED BY BLOOD TRANSFUSION. Am J Dis Child. 1924;27(3):256. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1924.019200900610
Regarding the appearance of infectiousness, some have stated that there may be some sort of bio-resonance situation where children sync up a childhood detoxification process in the way women can sync up periods but I have yet to see any good evidence for this. Others have focused on the psycho-somatic aspect of children being told they are going to be purposefully infected manifesting similar symptoms due to the suggestions by the parents. There is also the possibility of similar environmental exposures that could be affecting children at a similar time.
There are many possible explanations for these symptoms appearing around the same time yet the attempts to transmit these diseases intentionally to humans and children more often than not failed. The evidence seems to overwhelmingly suggest that transmitting these diseases intentionally is not possible.
davidonsocialmedia
Hi Mike
“There are many possible explanations for these symptoms appearing around the same time yet the attempts to transmit these diseases intentionally to humans and children more often than not failed. The evidence seems to overwhelmingly suggest that transmitting these diseases intentionally is not possible.”
I think what you say there might need some specification. Are you meaning that “the attempts to transmit these diseases intentionally to humans and children [in clinical/research settings] more often than not failed”?
I make the distinction because it could be argued that Chicken Pox parties are, and have been for quite some time, extremely successful attempts to transmit the dis-ease intentionally between children in any given community. In fact, many of us have direct lived experience of the ‘success’ of it.
In terms of the intended agenda of sending your kid to a chicken pox party, the result for many (ie. those whose kids get the rash), suggests that transmission of the disease is not only possible, it is a piece of cake 😉
Of course that doesn’t lead to any direct evidence of an exogenous ‘virus particle’ as transmissive agent, but it does make a decent case for some form of perhaps intelligent ‘contagion’.
In the case of chicken pox, which seems to occur around the same age and usually at the same time for entire groups of children over many generations and periods of history, so much so that it is embedded in culture, the similarity of environmental exposures argument seems a bit of a reach. Also, the psycho-somatic argument doesn’t hold if parents don’t tell their kids they are going to Johnny’s house in order to catch a disease and get sick… I don’t know what is the norm, but I certainly did not have this scary (to a child) agenda revealed, we just went for a party with school friends. I’d be surprised if I was the only child in that position.
To me, the ‘we’re all connected at various levels of awareness and non-awareness’ seems a better fit, but how to test that kind of ‘beyond the physical 5 senses’ hypothesis with the limitations of the 5 senses?
kordelas kordelas
Have you eliminated other factors like stress, malnutrition, toxins, unnatural EMF radiation, aging or physical trauma?
Have you seen any kid expressing those disease symptoms while leading species appropriate lifestyle in species appropriate environment?
Mike Stone
“I make the distinction because it could be argued that Chicken Pox parties are, and have been for quite some time, extremely successful attempts to transmit the dis-ease intentionally between children in any given community.”
The problem with these pox/measles party experiences are that they are anecdotal and are not scientific experiments. There are no studies on chickenpox or measles parties showing transmission between children. These are just stories. This also assumes that children at these parties are always “infected” which is not the case as I have heard from many that they went to one and did not come down with anything. How many children at these parties became “infected” and how many resisted “infection?” What variables or other factors were considered?
Unless there is a controlled study, these stories by themselves offer little in way of evidence of some sort of transmission.
tomibacsi
Mike, thanks for the detailed reply. Based on all those cases I think we can firmly establish that in clinical/laboratory settings it’s very unlikely to reproduce contagion, so that’s definitely a strike against the ‘virus’ hypothesis.
However, as davidonsocialmedia also points out, these parties are quite successful, and since kids are often not told why they’re brought there, the psychosomatic explanation can also be eliminated.
I also think that the environmental argument is a bit of a reach and if we designed studies to eliminate it (i.e. bringing the sick child to the home environment of the unsick child – which I believe also happens) I’m quite sure it could be successfully eliminated as well.
As for toxicity/EMF radiation, etc. playing a part – what I was suggesting was that the odds of all these things effecting the children just during that chickenpoxparty-following one week are astronomical.
So yes, because we lack the scientific studies to demonstrate the ‘contagion’ with kids playing next to each other and transmitting the disease, we can’t categorically determine that it happens.
However, just because we haven’t yet figured out how to scientifically prove something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist. The anecdotal evidence (not just chickenpox parties, but also employees with flu symptoms going into the office and within days “infecting” half the office) are very strong and should not be outright dismissed.
So far I’m leaning towards the bioresonance or as davidonsocialmedia suggested, the “we’re all connected at various levels of awareness and non-awareness” theory. But one thing for sure: this does sound like something worthy of further investigation.
kordelas kordelas
You can’t disprove that something does not exist. It is illogical. You can only prove that something exists or prove that existence of something is unproven.
If there was an infectious factor, it could be easily reproduce in clinical/laboratory settings.
There is no proof of successful parties. And stress disrupts physiological processes.
What 100% healthy kid was affected by the party?
So far we do not have anything to show that kids transmit the disease.
“However, just because we haven’t yet figured out how to scientifically prove something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist. The anecdotal evidence (not just chickenpox parties, but also employees with flu symptoms going into the office and within days “infecting” half the office) are very strong and should not be outright dismissed. ”
This is as strong as assumption about air poisoning, water poisoning, food poisoning, EMF damage or stress damage.
Also you forgot that the most people lead unhealthy lifestyle in unhealthy environment.
Mike Stone
“However, as davidonsocialmedia also points out, these parties are quite successful,”
Successful based on what? There is no evidence these parties were successful beyond anecdotal stories. How many kids were successfully “infected?” How long after the parties did they develop symptoms? Did they all develop the same symptoms? What was considered a chickenpox diagnosis and who diagnosed it? How many kids came away without symptoms?
Were other potential factors ruled out? Was the yard sprayed with pesticides recently? Could there have been a bedbug infestation? What were they eating at the time? What kind of air quality did they experience? Was there any increase in ambient radiation levels?
Sadly, there is no evidence for any of these parties. It is all heresay. Unless these parties are recreated today under controlled conditions, there is little reason to rely on them as evidence of contagion/infectiousness. It would be interesting to see what the results from well-controlled studies would show. However, as I shared previously, infectiousness directly from the lymph vesicle was disproven in 1918. This is directly from the study:
“Incidentally, these tests furnish interesting information as to the portal of entry of the virus of varicella. The fact that the lymph from the vesicles, when applied to the broken skin or to the mucous membranes, led to no infection must cause us to consider this investigation from quite another standpoint. How are we to explain this lack of infectivity of the contents of the vesicles, which are generally regarded as the source of infection, and are used as the criterion in prescribing the duration of quarantine?”
doi:10.1001/archpedi.1918.01910130041005
davidonsocialmedia
“If there was an infectious factor, it could be easily reproduce in clinical/laboratory settings.”
Not necessarily, if you’ve been paying attention 😉
The whole point of this thread started by tomibacsi, which he appears to have confirmed above, is that he suspects there may well be some non 5 senses trigger for the childhood peer development of a dis-ease or cleansing condition.
It’s possible that such a ‘contagion principle’ requires a natural environment, ie. one that exists normally within the community, and a clinical/lab setting is unlikely to be able to offer such an environment. This could explain Mike’s claim that no clinical/lab research has so far born out the validity of the once ubiquitous CP parties, which all parents and grandparents from my era of childhood know full well have a very good chance of ‘succeeding’ at the goal of ‘infecting’ their child or children.
“There is no proof of successful parties.”
Depends how you define successful. A parent would probably define success as his or her child getting the rash after attending the party. So if that happens, then it’s a successful party.
kordelas kordelas
What are “5 senses trigger”?
Where did idea of the party come from?
davidonsocialmedia
“What are “5 senses trigger”?”
I actually wrote ‘non 5 senses trigger’ – crappy grammar admittedly.
“Where did idea of the party come from?”
Huh?
kordelas kordelas
@davidonsocialmedia
What is a “non 5 senses trigger” or “5 senses trigger”?
Where does an idea of measles party or chickenpox party come from?
tomibacsi
Can auras be ‘proven’? How about twins ‘feeling’ across continents how their other twin feels? Can you prove reincarnation? Or should we throw all these out the window because we haven’t yet proven them in a laboratory setting?
I don’t believe it can much be argued that chickenpox parties are successful. And just because they’re not successful 100% of the time, or because the kid with 100% health didn’t contract the illness, that doesn’t mean there is no contagion going on.
Here is the thing: even if just one of the kids attending becomes sick after the party, then you have to see whether that was just a coincidence (i.e. he would have got sick anyway because of toxicity/environment even if he was isolated at home) or there is something else going on.
If this happens more than once, if more than one of the kids becomes ill with that particular disease, the odds start stacking against it being a coincidence. And as I said, if we look at all these happenings across decades and across the globe, and get a statistician to calculate those odds, I’m pretty sure we’re into the “astronomical” category.
I’m not arguing for the virus theory, all I’m saying is that it seems extremely likely that there is some sort of contagion effect and there is something going on that we haven’t yet done experimentations for.
And yes, I believe that we could. Have we actually brought a sick kid along with a number of healthy kids into the lab and let them play with each other while doing our best to control for all other factors? We probably haven’t.
Mike, as I’m sure the biggest challenge you face day to day is the “anecdotal evidence” of people telling you about how they caught this or that and asking you to explain that. You’ve done fantastic work on researching this and educating the public that “no, it’s not the virus”, but I think until a reasonable counter-theory is proven for these and similar contagions, the virus theory will remain the dominant one. And mainly because the anecdotal evidence is so strong and often very difficult to explain them away with ‘coincidence’ and environmental factors. Surely, we can try, but it’s probably better to say: “we don’t know yet, but we do know it’s not THAT.”
By the way, I do recognize the trouble with all the above in regards to the whole covid mess. But actually, even if we say that there is something (other than the virus) like bioresonance, for example, that facilitates ‘contagion’, we can still safely say that masks and vaccines are entirely useless. (which should have been pretty damn obvious by now if we had psychologically healthy people running the world)
As for social distancing: would need more experimentation to know for sure, like those kids with chickenpox playing together with a safe distance and seeing whether that made any difference.
I do believe we are connected on many levels, so I wouldn’t rule out anything at this point.
Mike Stone
“Or should we throw all these out the window because we haven’t yet proven them in a laboratory setting?”
No, we do not need to throw them out. But we must then put the disclaimer that these remain unproven phenomena. Some things we may simply never know.
“Here is the thing: even if just one of the kids attending becomes sick after the party, then you have to see whether that was just a coincidence (i.e. he would have got sick anyway because of toxicity/environment even if he was isolated at home) or there is something else going on.”
I agree that these studies should be done and investigated further. I have a strong suspicion they are not done as those in a position to perform them know, through decades of attempts, that transmission does not occur in this way. If it did, they could easily perform such a study and shut people like me up. They haven’t and they won’t.
“If this happens more than once, if more than one of the kids becomes ill with that particular disease, the odds start stacking against it being a coincidence. And as I said, if we look at all these happenings across decades and across the globe, and get a statistician to calculate those odds, I’m pretty sure we’re into the “astronomical” category.”
We can not just assume these parties are successful based on anecdotal reports. There is no hard data to point to showing how many pox parties there were, how many children became “infected,” how many didn’t, etc. This data does not exist. The only data that does exist shows that transmission was unsuccessful.
kordelas kordelas
In other words your cognitive standards are beliefs.
Nike
Causes of skin rashes:
– the elimination phase of chemical, pharmaceutical or biological toxins, in parallel with the elimination of affected tissues and the phenomenon of tissue regeneration
– the healing phase of tissue changes or tissue loss caused by harmful artificial electromagnetic radiation
– the healing phase of tissue loss caused by the intense desire to get rid of something that is considered disgusting or dangerous
reante
Good conversation. My probably simplistic hypothesis for chickenpox parties is that chronic community-wide retinol deficiencies at a particular growth-spurt developmental stage for children when skin, being the largest organ, has high demands for retinol. Grouped, co-incidental ‘chickenpox’ symptomologies intelligently evolved so as to unambiguously alert (remind) the parents/elders that their relationship with the ecology was chronically imbalanced (grassfed meat and organ and dairy shortage). I would suggest that exosomes have a role to play in transmission, but not necessarily the only one. If we remember that symptoms are good, healing phenomena in and of themselves, and erms don’t exist, then any transmission of them that there may be doesn’t need to be resisted ideologically. Right kk?
kordelas kordelas
@reante
“My probably simplistic hypothesis for chickenpox parties is that chronic community-wide retinol deficiencies at a particular growth-spurt developmental stage for children when skin, being the largest organ, has high demands for retinol.”
Is your hypothesis based on Kaufman and Cowan’s hypothesis?
“grassfed meat”
I will give you some food for thought.
Grassfed does not mean much. It must be species appropriate diet. Not just any grass.
Organs can cause issues.
Dairy is not widely available in nature.
Prove those exosomes you are talking about.
What phenomena have you observed?
Are you one of those wannabe carnivores who think they know it all?
LOL
reante
Is Andy’s and Tom’s hypothesis based on ‘mine’ might be the better question to be asking as I am not aware of their poxpothesis. Mine’s only a year or so old though.
kordelas kordelas
@reante
Just admit that you repeat their hypothesis from 2020.
Also I can say that you read my comments on twitter and YT where I was dealing with virologists and their supporters in 2020.
reante
There’s literature out there linking retinols to poxes and obviously it’s not a revolutionary idea but I do not recall reading their take on it. I am obviously pretty well aligned with Tom on diet. In all likelihood my evolutionary thinking on the chickenpox community function is original and has not been stated before. Since your trying to nail me to the wall why don’t you trot out their hypothesis already.
kordelas kordelas
@reante
What retinols?
What phenomena have they observed?
What scientific experiments they have conducted?
Are you talking about associations and correlations?
What is significant about if your diet is the same as Tom’s diet?
What have you discovered about unproven disease called as chickenpox?
That people get sick if they are overloaded with toxins and useless matter?
For example I got to such a conclusion when I checked out on my own if alleged bio viruses have been proven by direct real time observation of al vital occurring processes with them or experimentation on them as independent variables in the beginning of 2020. It took me less than 30mins.
I do not need to explain their hypothesis as I was addressing my own on social media platforms after my aforementioned discovery. That we get disease symptoms when our physiological processes are affected by one or more of six factors, i.e., stress, toxins, malnutrition, unnatural EMF radiation, physical trauma and aging. And that culprits are in our lifestyle and environment.
reante
All disease can be boiled down to trauma. Trauma covers ‘all five’ factors you mentioned, not including aging, with has nothing to do with disease. Aging beyond your 20s and 30s is just a headwind, nothing more.
The culprit is loss of animism.
Looks like your mouth wrote another check your butt can’t cash regarding Tom’s and Andy’s hypothesis. Better luck next time.
kordelas kordelas
@reante
Nonsense. It all boils down to disruption of physiological processes.
Unnatural EMF radiation is not trauma as it is exposure to unnatural patterns of it. It does not have to be physical damaging radiation.
Stress can be caused and prolonged by many things. It does not have to be shock only.
Malnutrition is wasting away. Prolonged.
Toxins is an overload of them.
Physical trauma is an obvious physical damage.
As you can see I destroyed all your arguments again. Just like every time.
You have nothing on me with your clownism. And your eristics plus mental gymnastics are laughable.
You are completely detached from reality.
Also you repeat Tom and Andy’s ideas. You completely lack originality.
And I exposed you here.
You are finished.
Try harder next time your stings with some gullible people.
BTW there is a reason why I make you the laughingstock here. LOL
reante
😀
That’s good stuff keks. Touche.
kordelas kordelas
@reante
You only fool yourself here, bozo.
davidonsocialmedia
I’m guessing English isn’t your first language kk?
kordelas kordelas
@davidsocialmedia
Yes, it is not. But I take as advantage as I am not lost in verbosity like you and reante.
Also do not worry about me as I have proven myself at trash talk duels with English natives.
And if you do not understand something, you can always ask again. Usually types like you want to use it as an excuse. But such eristics and mental gymnastics do not work on me. LOL
tomibacsi
@kordelas
maybe I don’t know the whole context and your relationship, it’s just very strange to read all the bellicose, belligerent and borderline nastiness aimed @reante. Surely, that could be attributed to the non-native speakers not being able to understand the nuances and distinctions needed for proper sensitivity (although I’m not a native speaker, either) but somehow I don’t think that’s it.
Surely it’s satisfying to our ego to flaunt our apparent intellectual or topical superiority, but the question is: is that really needed? Will they really benefit from that?
Anyway, just something to be aware of.
kordelas kordelas
@tomibacsi
It is reante who has a long history of trolling with his drivel here, not me.
Thus he needs to clean up his act.
Nike
There is nothing mysterious in the manifestations of our disease states that we call symptoms, which are only natural adaptation phenomena of the body to be able to cope with harmful factors and to be able to heal itself.
Our being is constantly searching for:
– to rebalance the intensity of vital energy flows that circulate through the tissues;
– to neutralize and eliminate toxins from outside the body;
– to evacuate metabolic residues and damaged tissues;
– to modify tissues so that they can deal with harmful factors;
– to return to normal the modified tissues to be able to deal with harmful factors;
– to repair tissues that have undergone degeneration;
reante
Yeah great Nike. And to think that so few of us are doing our being’s constant search justice, by setting it up for success as best we can. Respecting the rythmn. The ‘9-5,’ for one, is a devastating blow.
reante
david
By ‘flat-earthing’ the Terrain I mean the taking the basic biological realities out of the terrain just like flat earth theory takes the basic topographical reality out of the terrain, and replacing them with fantasy. It’s an escapist alternate reality born of the deep trauma of getting red-pilled. Flat earthism is losing your shit because you got red-pilled. I’ve previously referred to it here as like the serially sexually abused kid that walks around like a zombie, all shut down and glazed over, as a protective coping mechanism. Playing dungeons and dragons for the rest of your life or whatever. So obviously I do have great sympathy for the plight of flat earthers of the terrain but I also feel that, as adults especially, they need to be held accountable because traumatized people often want to put their shit on others (misery loves company maybe) and the trauma of getting red-pilled is a spectrum and I’d rather they didn’t suck the more traumatized of conspiracy theorists into their black hole. And obviously the truth matters for its own sake.
That said I don’t mean to make too much out of it, different strokes for different folks. There’s a desperation beneath it all though.
kordelas kordelas
Show me which topography proves a globe Earth.
I am waiting.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/370499601818806
George
Maybe I can help, but first I need to know if the plane of the earth is in rotation about a central axis?
kordelas kordelas
@George
Then verify it by going to distance far enough and observe Earth from different angles.
Also you can present and substantiate your claims here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/370499601818806/
davidonsocialmedia
Thanks, much clearer now 🙂
Nike
Our being is of a complexity that far exceeds our power to be aware of it and to understand it… but which operates according to some extremely simple and extremely clear principles.
All changes in the functions and structure of our body’s tissues and organs… have as their sole objective self-healing, in order to survive.
What does our being do, permanently… to survive?
– it intelligently modifies the characteristics of the energy flows that pass through the tissues and organs, in order to be able to deal with various harmful factors… and after the elimination of the harmful factors, it returns the characteristics of the energy flows to normal;
– intelligently changes the structural characteristics of tissues and organs:
1) to deal with harmful factors that do not bring toxicity from the outside into the body (negative emotional experiences, physical and intellectual overwork, quantitative and qualitative undernutrition, exposure to bad weather);
2) to neutralize harmful artificial electromagnetic radiation;
3) to neutralize and eliminate toxic substances from the outside (chemical, medicinal, vaccine, metalliferous, mineral and biological)…
… and after the elimination of the harmful factors, it returns the structural characteristics of the tissues to normal parameters;
– removes as efficiently as possible the substances resulting from catabolic processes and the residues generated by the psycho-somatic, physical, chemical and energetic tissue damage;
– regenerates damaged or softened tissues due to various harmful factors of a psycho-somatic, physical, chemical and energetic nature.
reante
Imagine how powerful are intense bursts of hard physical labor at pushing out particle and energetic pollutions. I imagine that we tap into the dark matter field a little deeper in order to focus our accumulated energy. We wield an increased/elecated consciousness in order to density our hologram so that we can impose our will on the surrounding holograms. As we crank out that pure, raw energy it flushes out the dirty signals. And when we’re spent and we rest, that densification of dark matter recedes like a tide and, since dark matter is the gravitational field, its recession pulls an abundance of dark energy into our being, which is why the high intensity training workout of our consciousness leaves us stronger than we were before.
davidonsocialmedia
Interesting idea 🙂
“pulls an abundance of dark energy into our being”
hmmm, not so sure about that… what do you mean by ‘being’.
reante
I was just rolling with Nike’s use of “being,” by which I just mean hologram/body.
In case your lack of certainty revolves around the dark in dark energy, of course I’m talking about the cosmological dark energy field and not any kind of metaphorical darkness. The field energy gifted to us by the creator, along with the field gravity (Consciousness).
I’m suggesting that dark energy and dark matter are tidal forces to be ridden. Ride the wave, brah.
davidonsocialmedia
Thanks for the clarification (that was quick)
I’ll ponder what you wrote for a while and post back if I come up with anything worthwhile 😉
Meanwhile, upfront, I’m much more comfortable with ‘dark energy’ (or what I Understand from that label) being related with body/hologram (vehicle), or even rather being source media, or perhaps better to say the precursor to the source media of the primordial soup (IME, alchemically speaking being a passive state of Elemental ‘building blocks’).
Consciousness on the other hand (which to me is indeed the driver/creator) … well I’ll have to go attempt to check that out. Right now I’d bet on Consciousness wielding the Dark Force (in very crude terms), not being something that is wielded.
Perhaps I should have included the word Consciousness as well as Being in my question for additional clarification 😉
I see you kind of define it there in your response though, as ‘the field gravity’. To me that’s a lower order phenomenon – crap, language is so limited… I know I’m going to long for an edit function again as soon as I hit the button LOL
tomibacsi
at the end of the day, it’s all the same thing, people 🙂
(and people, too, ofc)
Nike
https://en.rua.gr/2022/08/16/greek-surgeon-covid-19-vaccines-turn-childrens-tissues-into-jelly/?fbclid=IwAR1rgVV_6-O0SssQ4kdFlwBKk5xArvTxfmDlXq7mQyvAf9zhd5pyvK5GB9M
reante
You guys see that Steve Kirsch was on fox news last week. Can’t remember which show. He was talking about how the vaxxxes have killed hundreds of thousands and how at his friend’s wedding, out of the couple hundred conservatives that attended, about half were vaxxxed and half unvaxxxed, and from an informal survey they took something like 27 health crises and 3(?) deaths among the vaxxxed and zero and zero among the unvaxxxed, since the shots came out. And the host responded with the obligatory disclaimer.
The million dollar question does seem to be, will they use the vaxxx war crime to the maximum to propel a reactionary third way national socialism into power or will they not go that far and just use it as a tailwind and the true extent of the carnage will be fogged-out by war crisis or famine crisis. Maybe it also depends on what the 1-3yr medium-term effects of them will end up being, which is the period that we’re just entering into.
davidonsocialmedia
#unvaccinated was number one trend on twitter for a while.
Lots of peeps expressing hubris, no doubt stoked by the relief of vindication, and many baying for the blood of the ‘opposing team’.
Curious how this will play out.
tomibacsi
Very curious as well. Also interesting to watch if this becomes a legal issue. There is one big case that’s being settled out of court, but quite a few more on the docket, (mainly lawsuits against employers) I think it’s possible that if that picks up some steam, we could see an avalanche building.
Insurance companies are also seeing billions of dollars in losses, they might just jump on board and try to get compensated for that.
davidonsocialmedia
There’s plenty going on outside the US too 😉
tomibacsi
That’s true, but often we’re like an island nation and pretend that there is no outside of USA and what happens there is just ‘different’ and doesn’t apply. And it’s all about precedent, and if there is no ‘precedent’ in the US, legal teams have to start from scratch.
tomibacsi
I think that depends who you’re referring to as “they”. Surely, there is a strong argument that it’s all just one agenda and one coordinated ‘attack’ on our freedom and way of life, but it’s quite possible that there are some sub-groups within all this and not all the agendas coalesce.
But in any case, I think it’s quite likely that it’s not an either/or question, but what makes more sense at the time for them on the chessboard in this big game of psychological operation.
So yes, it depends on the 1-3 year effects, but also on our pushback, level of public awareness and their tactics of countering those in order to further the agenda.
George
FDA authorizes Novavax Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use in ages 12-17
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/19/health/novavax-covid-vaccine-adolescents/index.html
“Protein-based vaccines use a more traditional approach than mRNA vaccines, teaching the immune system to recognize little modified pieces of the virus that the vaccine is targeting. In this case, that means fragments of the coronavirus spike protein. The vaccine was created out of a genetic sequence of the original strain of the coronavirus.”
The following are “buzz words” used by vaccine manufacturers that in reality have no real meaning because they are not based on anything factual.
“Teaching the immune system”
“Little pieces of the virus”
“Fragments of the coronavirus spike protein”
“A genetic sequence of the original strain”