Those who follow my ‘auxiliary’ blog would be aware that I have been observing the Coronavirus debacle on a number of levels, although I have not been nearly as detail-oriented in my interest as many online commentators. The reason why is twofold: on the one hand, I have been preoccupied with researching two other particular subjects, with an element of wanting to avoid falling into a rhythm imposed by the mediatic machine; while on the other, I have very early on, then gradually after that, come across more and more radical propositions concerning not only the manufactured nature of the Coronavirus crisis, but the shaky foundations, to say the least, upon which the field of virology has been erected. Therefore I opted for a ‘lazy’ approach until I could examine the root of the matter.
You may have heard of the late Kary Mullis and his objections concerning PCR tests, the misappropriated fruit of his own personal contribution to the scientific edifice. However, what will be treated in the following video is of an entirely different caliber. Through the application of basic scientific principles by retired German microbiologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, the entire field of virology, no less, has been brought to an end… or rather, the rationale for its existence has. It remains unclear how soon Lanka will be able to get the recognition he deserves.
As is usual with similar posts, I warn the reader that this has nothing to do with any kind of simplism. The answer to Lanka’s (correct) assertions has nothing to do with how supposedly complex virology is; that is, too complex to draw conclusions ‘prematurely’. The crux of the matter really does lie in the fact that the context of historical development of the field has made it so that a basic procedure fundamental to scientific enquiry was not conducted, therefore the product was something other than empirical-scientific knowledge. If any course correction manoeuvre could really be carried out by virology to supposedly remedy the problem, it would have been by now, after all these decades and with the all the funding that the field receives.
Relatedly, I would guess that the increase of interest in these views within the context of the current crisis lends itself to some basic sociological analysis, but never will the latter be able to displace the science of it. The problem of methodology is at the core of the issue with virology; the sociology of virology scepticism is at the periphery. I am stating this because one often finds that discussion of the most radically unorthodox views is usually circumvented through the invocation of allegedly pertinent sociological and psychological (understand psychologizing) explications.
As I have stated in my first alert on the 2014 to 2016 lawsuit against Dr. Lanka surrounding a prize money challenge concocted by him:
« … when the German court has intervened in your favour, then there is definitely something right to what you are doing. In a surreal instance of straight-facedness, the press spokesman for the same Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart is reported to have asserted after Lanka’s victory that “according to the expert reports obtained, the studies presented by the plaintiff (Bardens) in a holistic view “both provided evidence of the existence of the measles viruses and provided information about their diameter”.” Why yes, indubitably, which is rigorously why Lanka has won and Bardens has lost.
The court case decision text makes it sound as if Lanka has won through a technicality (the only point retained by some online critics), but not once is an explicit argument against his main ones expressed despite their being able to describe them fairly accurately, and they generally do not seem to have enough of a grip on the topic and to be too dependent upon peremptory, generic statements by their experts. »
The video I have put together will make this absolutely clear, although it leaves some facets and details for those interested to further delve into. I decided to make it once I came across this sharp intervention by Russian Instagramer Ekaterina Sugak. The compilation is actually built around it.
Once more, Youtube have taken down my upload by the following morning after I posted it on Thursday. This has allowed me to introduce some minor corrections to the translation before re-upload. Vimeo have taken down this latter version, so I decided to help them along in their mission by removing myself from their “platform”. One less account to trouble oneself with.
The less glitchy older version is still up on Brand New Tube.
There is a teeny bit of alternative biological paradigm as leaving it out felt a little dishonest, but the actually relevant bulk does not deviate from the strictly defined issue of methodology. That said, I am in fact quite interested in the views on life propounded by Lanka and scientists connected to him. It so happens that French-Algerian commentator Salim Laïbi has recently pointed his audience in the direction of the late Ryke Geerd Hamer, seeming to speak highly of him but keeping a veil of mystery around his work… I have had a look at a discussion between Lanka and Ilsedora Laker from Canada concerning Hamer, but I have yet to get a more precise notion.
Again, please bear in mind that the refutation of virology is in no way dependent upon Hamer’s work.
Both videos along with others, featuring further interesting voices, can also be found on Dean Braus’s Odysee channel. Among them is a conversation with Lanka and a 2018 Nobel candidate, for those impressed by award names more than by the quality of the thinker. There is also this April three–part interview of Lanka with DSalud (paywalled Spanish transcript; video of the interview in German), the most extensive to date, and then this one from 1998 which somewhat reflects how he has evolved since then.
In any case, I shall keep from commenting further and will leave you with links to the most prominent contributors featured in the compilation. Further links can be found in the video description.
Екатерина Сугак/Ekaterina Sugak