Just the facts on the CoronaVirus


Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
"Viruses" have never been proven to exist. In fact, scientifically speaking, a "virus" has never been isolated. "Viruses" do not exist until and unless they have been proven to exist. If and when the day comes that they can isolate a "virus," place it in a dish with cells and develop a video recorder that can record what can currently only be seen as still images under a scanning electron microscope, so we can sit and watch in real time a "virus" in action from start to finish invading and infecting cells as has been proffered to the public, rather than assuming that scanned images of DNA and RNA from bits and pieces of expired cells are "viruses" - which the scientists who assert are "viruses" refer to as "non-living particles," which really are nothing more than bits and pieces of cell debris - then they will still have to prove "contagion" exists. In fact, they will have to go to the local grocery store with their high-tech microscopic video recorder and record the "non-living particles" called "viruses" on shopping cart handles. Oh, and don't give us Hollywood animations either. If YOU believe "viruses" exist - and that's all it is, a "belief" - then review, analyze, contemplate and digest the information published within this website to get informed because the real question for YOU is: Do you "believe" in vaccines (harmful chemicals and aborted baby parts being injected into your body)? They intend to use the CONCEPT of "viruses" to establish government-mandated forced vaccinations upon every man, woman and child. The vaccines will be a serum laced with nanotech microchips that will work in conjunction with high frequency 5G radiation waves for easy tagging and tracking of the herd of humanity. Are you going to be part of their herd?

An abundance of information has been compiled within this website for those interested in the truth behind the "Coronavirus Global Pandemic" HOAX, "viruses," "contagion" and "illnesses." This recent Blog presents a good overview of what we're fighting against and how you can help.

Most people do not even know what a "virus" is. They only know what they have been taught or told a "virus" is. Even at that, they have a very limited and vague knowledge and understanding of what a "virus" is. When you consider the broad reaching scope to which viruses allegedly impact human lives, you would think that would be the number one study for every human being on the planet. Think about it. An "invisible phantom enemy"? An unseen perpetrator of illnesses and deaths in the tens of millions? Is there really such an invisible perpetrator? Or is the CONCEPT of "viruses" simply that: a CONCEPT... a cleverly concocted and cunningly crafted conspiracy to control all countries... a strategically fabricated "invisible phantom enemy" that can be used to shut down and lock down all of society throughout the entire world... a devilishly devised deterrent to the destiny of humanity whereby the powers-that-be can easily strip people of their Freedoms, Liberties, Rights and Livelihoods through feigned "global pandemics"... the picture-perfect principle whereby government-mandated forced vaccinations may be perpetrated upon every man, woman and child?

For those who want to learn more about so-called "viruses" and what is really going on with this "Coronavirus Global Pandemic" - a pre-planned economic shutdown - watch the videos on this website. The more you watch, the more you will know with full confidence this is a manufactured event. It has instilled fear within people and robbed them of their Freedoms, Liberties, Rights and Livelihoods. Dr. Andrew Kaufman (top three videos to the right), is a Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist and Molecular Biologist who received his training and degrees from Duke University, MIT and South Carolina Medical University. He says there are no such things as "viruses" and this is a "manufactured event." The man who invented the email system and has several degrees in engineering and biology, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, is a PhD from MIT. He has called this a "hoax based upon false science." Dr. T.C. Fry and Health Practitioner, Tom Barnett, also say there are no such things as "viruses" - not as "invisible phantom enemies" or green and red "monster blobs" that are depicted in illustrations and animations. That is just propaganda. There is only the "viral process" of the body's own cells engulfing cell debris and toxins (poisons) to rid them from the body. The Latin origin of the word "virus" means "poison." Toxins (poisons) within the body is the only reason why people get sick and die - not from "invisible phantom enemies" called "viruses." The definition of the word "virus" gradually changed over time to suit the agendas of the very profitable education, medical, pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

There are many scientists, professors and doctors that dispute the mainstream "virus" hypothesis, especially HIV (AIDS). They are all correct. True science and the data supports their position, as well as logic, reason and common sense.

Let's take a step back to the 1930s...

Research into "viruses" surely must have had innocent and noble beginnings immediately following the invention of the scanning electron microscope, when they were finally able to see tiny microscopic particles within and without of cells for the first time. However, taxpayer-funded revenues in the millions were being procured from the government for ongoing research. It is certain that efforts to maintain and even increase such procurements of government funding, which currently ranges in the billions of dollars annually, spawned an equally new, albeit unscientific, process of manipulating, conspiring, twisting and contorting scientific and medical findings in an effort to maintain that funding. The vaccine industry, which was already well underway, also desired to foster and bolster their profits-driven plans. The perfect partnership was established for assuming and asserting that microscopic particles were disease causing microbes. Thus, the cleverly concocted and cunningly crafted concepts of "viruses" and "contagion" were consummated. In the decades that followed an array of strategically fabricated aspirations and ambitions have been carried out. That Modus Operandi continues to this day. Their current aspirations and ambitions are to establish government-mandated forced vaccinations for every person on earth. Tens-of-billions of taxpayer-funded government dollars are funneled into the education, medical and pharmaceutical industries each year, as well as their tax-exempt non-profit organizations. Much of it is unaccounted for.

Now back to 2020 and the "coronavirus global pandemic"...

"Viruses" and "Viral Contagion" are cleverly concocted, cunningly crafted, devilishly devised "CONCEPTS" that were strategically fabricated in order to funnel billions of dollars every year into the education, medical, pharmaceutical and chemical industries, as well as to create uncertainty, confusion and fear in people in order to manipulate and control them.

"Those particles of DNA called 'viruses' are nothing more than mitochondrial debris from expired body cells - daily we lose hundreds of billions of cells from our organism of 75 trillion. Most of this cellular loss is replaced. Now that a destructive and malevolent enemy has been pronounced the villain, an enemy that transcends all and afflicts the moral as well as the immoral, the stage is set for general public hysteria as a buildup for the entry of all sorts of products on the scene... especially vaccines." - Dr. T.C. Fry, 1989

That includes face masks, gloves, face shields, ventilators, hand sanitizers, toilet paper, paper towels, etc. - little did Dr. T.C. Fry know. He also said: "Without viruses and viral contagion the medical and pharmaceutical industries are dead." The education, medical, pharmaceutical, chemical and paper products industries all fair well with the contrived concept of viruses - at your expense. The governments also fair well with government control - at your expense.

Indeed, the only things that can be seen under a scanning electron microscope within and without of cells are cell debris from expired cells. Also, some scientists and doctors purport that exosomes are excreted from cells to gobble up poisons and carry them back to the cells to be transported out of the body. There are no such things as "viruses." In fact, it is an utterly nonsensical and ridiculous claim to assert that non-living particles called "viruses" have infected the entire world. Even more ridiculous to assert that such "non-living particles" can "live" on shopping carts at grocery stores. It seems people's minds have returned to the dark ages of sorcery, witchcraft, voodoo and evil spirits.
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues


Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist and Molecular Biologist who received his training and degrees from Duke University, MIT and South Carolina Medical University. In his video to the right he reviews the science and proves that the "Coronavirus Global Pandemic" was and is a HOAX based upon "false science." He proves deception, fraud and malfeasance.

Aside from the elite and highly qualified scientists and doctors that we feature on the Home page of this website - those with impressive backgrounds and degrees who all concur with one another that there are no such things as "viruses" - we endeavor to include as many such "experts" as we can into all of our pages, as well as links to pages within other websites wherein additional such scientists and doctors are present - like this large and growing group of scientists and doctors who all question the mainstream hypothesis concerning "viruses," which includes AIDS (HIV). Dr. T.C. Fry exposes the TRUTH behind the AIDS hoax within his highly acclaimed book: The Great AIDS Hoax.

If you want to question the reliability and veracity of one, or maybe even 2 or 3 scientists and doctors who disagree with the mainstream hypothesis and media-driven narratives concerning "viruses," that might be understandable - although their claims should still be worth looking into. When there are four or more, as is the case within this website - along with links to hundreds of others - then it becomes an information war and a battle for minds. Those who utilize their own God-given intelligence, reason and common sense will find themselves aligning with those who oppose the mainstream. When will the truth become mainstream?

The current mainstream has a multi-billion-dollar per year motive and incentive to lie, as well as the motive and incentive of being able to increase government control over "We The People" with the scary concept of an "invisible enemy." We can fight back with the Patriot Action Plan.

There are three classifications of scientific mindset when it comes to knowing about and understanding so-called "viruses":

1.) Scientists and doctors who believe in and promote the mainstream hypothesis and narratives, which are the ones that support the status quo. Their motives and incentives may include: power, control, pride, ego, money, job security.

2.) Scientists and doctors who think "viruses" exist due to their traditional schooling and training, but they do not necessarily believe in and subscribe to the mainstream hypothesis and narratives. They are confused, not sure what to think, shifty in their views and understanding and will shy away or backdown from critical and empirical questioning - often closing with: "That is not my area of expertise." They are still learning.

3.) Scientists and doctors who know and understand that there are no such things as "viruses." They know the Latin origin of the word "virus" means "poison" and that there are no such things as "invisible enemies" or green and red "monster blobs" like those depicted in artistic illustrations and 3D animations, which are alleged by the mainstream to attack cells within the human body causing illnesses and diseases that may result in death. They know that microscopic particles seen under scanning electron microscopes, which the mainstream refers to as "viruses," are nothing more than fragmented mitochondrial cell debris from expired cells - and possibly exosomes that are excreted from cells to gobble up poisons and carry them back to the cells to be transported out of the body. They know the reasons why people get sick and die.

Extensive external list of scientists & doctors who concur

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

Click here to view an assortment of his videos

You must see these videos

You must see these videos

The Poisoned Needle is an archive of scientific data going back as early as the 1880s.


Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates
About 150 years ago, scientists painstakingly constructed a set of principles that can prove whether a particular microbe is the cause of a specific disease or is just a bystander. Those three principles are known as the Koch postulates.

From all the available information, the novel coronavirus doesn’t appear to meet any of these tenets, never mind all three.

Like most human endeavours, the Koch postulates were the product of collaboration. First, Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts, and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining them until they were published in 1890. The resulting three postulates are:

  1. The pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease.
  2. The causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite.
  3. After being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture (or cloned), it can induce the disease anew.
The principles have been altered almost beyond recognition by various researchers over the ensuing 130 years. But the changes concomitantly watered down the postulates. That’s why they’re still used today by most researchers seeking to robustly prove or disprove the existence of a pathogen and its exclusive relationship with a particular disease.

There’s an urgent need for scientists to step up and do this conclusively with the novel coronavirus and COVID-19. But, strangely, the fire hose of scientific papers on the virus-disease dyad is only a sickly trickle on this tremendously important aspect of it.

A very straightforward and inexpensive experiment is all that’s needed to prove that the first postulate has been met.

Here’s how to do it. Test blood samples from a large number of people for the novel coronavirus using a test that’s been proven by several non-conflicted third parties to be accurate – i.e., to have very low rates of false positives and false negatives.

Then, if all the people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 are the same ones who tested positive for the novel coronavirus, that would prove the virus causes COVID-19. (Note that COVID-19 would have to be diagnosed based on a well-defined and finite set of symptoms. The currently-used and excessively broad diagnostic criteria – such as pneumonia, or the combination of fever and cough – doesn’t cut it, because those are present in many other respiratory conditions.)

But such an experiment has never been done, or if it has been done it hasn’t been made public.

The real kicker, though, is that the third postulate – isolating and sequencing the virus and then showing it causes the disease in other organisms – has not been fulfilled either.

We’ve scoured the internet and found no proof that scientists have done the simple steps required to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 conclusively meets even one – never mind all — of the third postulate’s constituent parts. Those parts are:

  • isolation from a human patient’s cells of full-length novel-coronavirus DNA*
  • sequencing of the isolated DNA, then determining that the identical sequence is not present in any other virus, and next replicating or cloning the DNA to form a new copy of the virus
  • injecting the new copy of the virus into a statistically significant number of living hosts (usually lab animals) and seeing whether those animals develop the discrete diagnostic symptoms associated with COVID-19 rather than developing the diagnostic symptoms of any other infection or disease.
A few scientists have claimed that some or all of the postulates have been fulfilled. Their papers have been given laudatory coverage by the media, public-health officials and politicians.

The problem is that each of these papers falls apart on even cursory examination.

For example, in February 2020 Chinese and Dutch researchers published studies purporting to show they had isolated the virus, which is the first step in fulfilling the third postulate.

But both teams sourced the virus from animals rather than humans. (And on top of that, the Dutch study was done 15 years ago on SARS-CoV, not SARS-CoV-2.)

Another example is a review paper by two Americans published in February 2020 and cinematically titled ‘Return of the Coronavirus: 2019-nCoV.’ Two places in the paper suggest the third postulate has been at least partially fulfilled.

The first is in the section titled ‘Emergence.’ There, the two authors write:

After extensive speculation about a causative agent [of the Wuhan outbreak], the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed a report by the Wall Street Journal and announced identification of a novel CoV on 9th January [2]. The novel CoV (2019-nCoV) was isolated from a single patient and subsequently verified in 16 additional patients [3]. While not yet confirmed to induce the viral pneumonia, 2019-nCoV was quickly predicted as the likely causative agent.

Strikingly, though, reference 3 that the authors link to at the end of the second sentence is a World Health Organization press release rather than a published study.

The section’s next two sentences describe several Chinese research groups’ virus-sequencing results. However, these sequencing attempts are shoddy. For example, one group’s paper has many red flags – and indeed, on the web page showing the group’s sequence, commenters point to such problems as ‘sequencing and assembly artifacts.’ That group also didn’t replicate or clone the DNA to form a new copy of the virus, as required by the third postulate. (All subsequent sequencing attempts also have fatal flaws with respect to meeting the postulates.)

Yet the Chinese researchers’ gene sequences are integral to all of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test kits.

The second place in the review paper that refers to the principles is in the fifth section, ‘Achieving Koch Postulates.’ The authors assert that:

Traditional identification of a microbe as the causative agent of disease requires fulfillment of Koch’s postulates, modified by Rivers for viral diseases [37]. At the present time, the 2019-nCoV has been isolated from patients, detected by specific assays in patients, and cultured in host cells (one available sequence is identified as a passage isolate), starting to fulfill these criteria.

What’s missing is even one reference to back up those assertions.

Meanwhile, public-health officials appear oblivious to this gaping hole in the science. They imperiously pronounce that they’re using the best data available, and act as if evidence-based decision-making is the substrate for the draconian measures they’re imposing.

Could it be that they’re in fact using decision-based evidence-making?

Here’s an idea: please email your local, state/provincial AND national/federal governments, asking for solid scientific evidence that:

  1. SARS-CoV-2 causes a discrete illness that matches the characteristics of all of the deaths attributed to COVID-19
  2. the virus has been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness.
If you get a response, please share it below.

*The virus contains RNA, which it injects into the nuclei of cells. There, the RNA is converted to DNA by reverse transcriptase enzymes.^


Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
Scientific Information on Masks Against COVID-19
Masks are being widely recommended as protection against the COVID-19 virus, both to protect the wearer from infection, and to protect others from wearers who do not know that they are infected. Trouble is, most of the scientific evidence and recommendations are against the use of masks by the general public. Despite this they are increasingly mandated. In some places you cannot walk around outside without a mask, in others you cannot go inside a public space without a mask. Workers are often mandated to wear them. And now airline passengers, no matter the length of their flight.

Evidence for the use of Masks
The strongest evidence for the use of masks is a Cochrane Collaboration review. Seven studies from the era of SARS found that mask-wearing was highly effective in case-control studies, although this type of study is subject to bias because the control arm is simply a representative group, unlike in a placebo controlled trial (very difficult with masks). For example, if the cases are sicker than the controls, they may behave differently, including in wearing a mask.

Of the seven papers, five studied only health-care workers, and this article does not question whether health care workers should wear masks. This leaves only two papers. One provided no socio-economic or health data on the case versus control groups, leaving open the possibility that there were significant differences. The last study confirmed this, the cases (who had been diagnosed with ‘probable’ SARS, i.e. without a SARS test) were significantly sicker before SARS than the controls, which makes sense because people who were diagnosed with SARS tended to have pre-existing health conditions, just as is found with COVID-19. Mask wearing and hand washing were more common in controls, resulting in the conclusion that they were protective. But attending farmer’s markets was also ‘protective’. In reality this probably just reflects the better health of the control group. Really sick people may avoid the use of masks because it interferes with their breathing when they already have problems. This possibility was not considered by either paper.

So, in conclusion there are two papers in this review that claimed that wearing masks was protective against SARS, but one admits that the control group was significantly healthier than the case group, and the other paper is silent on this important source of bias.

Jefferson T et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 06; (7)CD006207.
There are also the hamsters, however. No, Hong Kong University did not find a source of hamster sized surgical masks, but in an unpublished paper, they describe putting a surgical mask over the air flow between a cage of RNA positive hamsters and a cage of RNA negative hamsters, and documenting that a higher proportion of the RNA-negative hamsters became RNA-positive when there was no mask over the airflow. It is not clear why the researchers believe their studies can be extrapolated directly to people. Although newspaper articles claim that the paper has been released, not even the Hong Kong University press release, the institution where the work was performed, provided any details about its location.

HKU hamster research shows masks effective in preventing Covid-19 transmission. HKU. 2020 May 18.
More recently a paper in Lancet identified 172 observational studies (not randomized trials) that they claimed supported social distancing or mask wearing. Of the 44 they examined in detail, 35 studied health care workers, 8 studied close contacts (e.g. a household with an ill person, traced contacts of a person with a positive test) and only 3 studied public spaces (one studied all three, hence the numeric discrepancy). Of those 3 papers one studied distance versus infection risk on airplanes, and another was included in the Cochrane study, above. The third paper, as yet not peer-reviewed and published, was focussed on contact tracing, but did note that of two couples discovered to be both positive through contact tracing (out of 404 close contacts of 9 COVID-19 cases), one took a lot of precautions (mask, separate bedroom, separate bathroom) while the other did not, lending no clarity to the mask debate.

Chu DK et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Jun 01.
A heavily promoted paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ads on Twitter paid for by McMaster University in Canada) claims in the title that “Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19”. They admit that, “cloth does not stop isolated virions”, but claim that since virus particles are always attached to droplets, that research on transmission of bacteria can be useful. Many of the masks tested in experiments they referenced had 3 to 6 layers of cloth. They also admit that the only randomized trial (discussed below) showed that cloth masks increased influenza-like illnesses in health care workers who wore them for long periods of time. They ignore the Korean research (also discussed below) that concluded that, “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients”. Finally they conclude their promotion of cotton masks by admitting that, “Whether wearing a mask of any sort in a community context protects oneself or others is unknown”. Maybe this paper should be in a section of its own, “Papers that want masks to work but cannot prove it”.

Clase CM et al. Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based, Risk-Based Approach. Ann Intern Med. 2020 May 22.
Evidence against the use of Masks
A very recent review of the literature that was published in the CDC journal, “Emerging Infectious Diseases” did not find evidence that handwashing or masks were protective against influenza. Masks did not help infected people reduce their risk of infecting others, nor reduce the risk of uninfected people contracting influenza.

“In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission…Hand hygiene is a widely used intervention and has been shown to effectively reduce the transmission of gastrointestinal infections and respiratory infections. However, in our systematic review, updating the findings of Wong et al., we did not find evidence of a major effect of hand hygiene on laboratory-confirmed influenza virus transmission...We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility...It is essential to note that the mechanisms of person-to-person transmission in the community have not been fully determined. Controversy remains over the role of transmission through fine-particle aerosols.”
Xiao J et al. Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings-Personal Protective and Environmental Measures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 May 17; 26(5).
A Korean study put masks on COVID-19 infected people and did not reduce the transmission of viral RNA when patients coughed with a mask on.

“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.”
Bae S et al. Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2: A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 6.
Adverse Consequences of Masks
Adverse consequences of masks are most obvious among health-care workers, where use is more controlled, but members of the general public who voluntarily wear masks for extended periods of time may experience similar problems.

A study in BMJ showed that people who were told to wear cloth masks for extended period of time (for purposes of this study) had higher rates of influenza-like illness than other health care workers but could decide if and when to wear masks, and higher rates than those wearing surgical masks. Even among health care workers, mask wearing could be counter-productive.

“The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI [influenza-like illness] statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm [workers who followed standard practice, which could sometimes include mask wearing]. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.”
MacIntyre CR et al. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 22; 5(4): e006577.
A study from Singapore found an increased risk of headaches, indicative of oxygen deprivation, among health care workers. This may or may not apply to the general public who generally wear masks that are less tight fitting (and therefore less effective).

“A total of 158 healthcare workers participated in the study. Majority [126/158 (77.8%)] were aged 21-35 years. Participants included nurses [102/158 (64.6%)], doctors [51/158 (32.3%)], and paramedical staff [5/158 (3.2%)]. Pre-existing primary headache diagnosis was present in about a third [46/158 (29.1%)] of respondents. Those based at the emergency department had higher average daily duration of combined PPE exposure compared to those working in isolation wards [7.0 vs 5.2 hours] or medical ICU [7.0 vs 2.2 hours]. Out of 158 respondents, 128 (81.0%) respondents developed de novo PPE-associated headaches. A pre-existing primary headache diagnosis (OR = 4.20 and combined PPE usage for >4 hours per day (OR 3.91) were independently associated with de novo PPE-associated headaches. Since COVID-19 outbreak, 42/46 (91.3%) of respondents with pre-existing headache diagnosis either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the increased PPE usage had affected the control of their background headaches, which affected their level of work performance.”
Ong JJY et al. Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment - A Cross-Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19. Headache. 2020 05; 60(5): 864-877.
Opinions against the use of Masks
WHO has stated that is no benefit to healthy people wearing masks in public, and there is only limited evidence that masks help when in contact with a sick person.

“There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in the households or among contacts of a sick patient, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a preventive measure. However, there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19. WHO. 2020 Apr 6.
Dr Jenny Harries, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer from the UK, warns that because most members of the public use one mask for an extended period of time, when they take it off at home and put it on a non-sterile surface it becomes contaminated.

“What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won’t wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven’t cleaned. Or they will be out and they haven’t washed their hands, they will have a cup of coffee somewhere, they half hook it off, they wipe something over it. In fact, you can actually trap the virus in the mask and start breathing it in. Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less.”
Baynes C. Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns. The Independent. 2020 Mar 12.
Jake Dunning, head of emerging infections and zoonoses (animal to human transmission of disease) at Public Health England added that,

“[there is] very little evidence of a widespread benefit [from wearing masks]…Face masks must be worn correctly, changed frequently, removed properly, disposed of safely and used in combination with good universal hygiene behaviour in order for them to be effective.”
Baynes C. Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns. The Independent. 2020 Mar 12.
The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) does not recommend that the public wears masks, because they do not work, they may reduce other preventive measures, and they risk the supply of masks for healthcare workers.

“We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because: There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers.”
Brosseau LM et al. COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data. CIDRAP. 2020 Apr 1.
An experienced ER nurse (RN, MSN) examined the data when her grandchild’s pre-school decided that even toddlers need to wear masks, and her literature review produced a lot of information against mask wearing, and she showed that the seven papers by the CDC in support of mask wearing are irrelevant to the subject.

Neuenschwander P. Healthy People Wearing Masks to Stop Corona Not Supported by Science. Jennifer Margulis. 2020 May 13.
Evidence is largely against mask-wearing by the general public. It is generally seen as ineffective, may take attention away from other protective measures, will reduce the supply of masks for healthcare workers, and may cause harm when worn for extended periods of time.

© Copyright June 23, 2020. David Crowe



Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
Just scrolling through all of this stuff is a bit exhausting. Presumably, bplion reads all of this stuff before posting it here. I wonder what portion of each day he devotes to these activities. It must be a very significant portion. :eek:
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
OSHA says Cloth Masks and Surgical Masks Don't Work: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/co... OSHA defines oxygen deficient atmosphere as below 19.5% :https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regula... OSHA example of shipyard, where "oxygen deficient atmosphere is leading cause of fatalities: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ship... CAL-OSHA states, "Cloth face covers are not protective equipment and do not protect the person wearing a cloth face cover from COVID-19." https://dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/C...



Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014

Misinterpretation Virus beginning and end of the corona crisis by Dr. Stefan Lanka The definition of SARS and corona or covid-19 states that atypical pneumonia is considered to be the clinical picture characterising the disease. If known pathogens can be detected in the case of pneumonia, the pneumonia is described as a typical, if not an atypical one. One of two decisive facts for SARS and the corona crisis is that at least 20-30% of all pneumonia is atypical. The causes of atypical pneumonia are clearly known and therefore must NOT be presented as the cause of an unknown virus. This fact is suppressed by infectiologists and virologists and is the basis of the current fear and panic, because the impression is created among those affected, the public and politicians that atypical pneumonia would be particularly dangerous and more often fatal because there are no drugs or vaccines for the allegedly novel disease. From the time when a test procedure for the alleged new virus is offered, which, which is concealed by those involved, also tests healthy people "positively", the number of cases is increased automatically. At first, people with typical pneumonia are included, then more and more people with other diseases. This is considered to be practical proof of the spread of the virus. Automatically more and more other diseases are added to the original disease "atypical pneumonia" and this "syndrome" is displayed as "the new virus disease". The other decisive fact, not only for SARS and the corona crisis, is that virologists who claim that viruses cause disease suppress an openly lying situation for understandable reasons. The virus test procedure offered is a genetic detection method. The gene sequences they use for the detection test are not isolated from a virus. They isolate typical gene sequences that are released in increased amounts when tissue and cells die. These generally short gene sequences, components of the human metabolism, form the basis for further laboratory work. However, virologists are only able to construct long strands of genetic material from many short gene sequences with the help of computer programs. These are then output as real, viral DNA strands. This is the reason why positive test results are repeatedly obtained even in tested healthy persons. In order to avoid refuting themselves, these virologists consistently disregard two rules prescribed by science. One is to consistently verify all claims themselves. The other is to test all assumptions and methods used by means of control experiments. If they were to carry out the control experiments, they would find that ALL of the short gene sequences that they only mentally link to a viral genome strand originate from the human metabolism and not from outside, from a claimed virus. The momentum of the corona crisis was triggered by an announcement of a young ophthalmologist on 30.12.2019 in the internet, which spread immediately and very quickly. He told friends that several people are quarantined in his hospital, seven cases of SARS are confirmed, they should be careful and protect themselves. Prof. Christian Drosten of the Charité in Berlin heard of this, immediately started the development of test procedures for SARS viruses before it was even clear and could be made clear whether the report from China about SARS was true and proven, and above all before the Chinese virologists published their results. The authoritative virologists of the Chinese Disease Control Commission (CCDC) published their results on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020. They report on the isolation of many short gene sequences, which, when strung together, could represent a genetic strand of a new type of virus. The authors expressly point out - and all other virologists involved to this day - that the absolutely necessary experiments have not yet been carried out, which would make it possible to claim that this is indeed a genetic strand of a diseasecausing virus. On the contrary: The Chinese virologists even explicitly point out that the constructed genetic strand has up to 90% similarity to genetic strands of harmless and for decades known, main corona viruses in bats. On 21.1.2020 (3 days before the first publication of the CCDC!) the WHO recommended all nations to use the test procedure developed by Prof. Drosten. By claiming that he had developed a reliable test procedure for the rapidly spreading virus in China, Prof. Drosten, disregarding the clearly defined rules of scientific work which are part of his employment contract and by violating the laws of thought and logic of virology, has triggered and caused the increase and globalisation of the Chinese epidemic panic. 1. the beginning of the corona crisis When the young ophthalmologist Li Wenliang informed seven doctors in Wuhan via WhatsApp on 30.12.2019 that several people were quarantined in his hospital, seven cases of SARS had been confirmed, that they should be careful and protect themselves, he did not intend to cause a panic. If he had, he would have posted the announcement on the Internet and warned the public. One of the seven recipients of this private WhatsApp message published a "screenshot", i.e. a photo of the message, on the Internet without being aware of the possible consequences. Of course, this information spread very quickly within China and then also worldwide. This communication triggered a wave of fear, panic and inquiries to Chinese health authorities and the government because of the pa- nik of a SARS crisis in 2003, which the World Health Organization (WHO) classified as a "worldwide threat" on March 12, 2003. As a result, the Government in Beijing sent a "rapid reaction force" consisting of epidemiologists and virologists from the Chinese Disease Control Center (CCDC) to Wuhan on 31 December 2019 to support the local health authorities and the surrounding Hubei Province. The aim was to check and verify the allegations about the outbreak of an epidemic. If an outbreak had indeed occurred, the situation should be adequately controlled. In the first authoritative publication by the authors of the CCDC on the results of their research, "A New Co- ronavirus of Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019"1 , there is no report of an accumulation of cases of atypical pneumonia ("patients with pneumonia of unknown cause"). They report that the existing patients can be grouped into a "cluster", a group with common characteristics. The common feature was the more or less frequent visit of a seafood who- lesale market in Wuhan. How small the group of patients with atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC of only four patients took smears and fluids of the lower respiratory tract in order to search for known and unknown pathogens. In the meantime the panic in Wuhan and the surrounding area increased extremely. Even the measures of the police, who asked the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang on January 3, 2020, to commit himself in writing by signing a declaration of discontinuance, which was proven to be punishable by law, not to spread anything more about a possible SARS outbreak, could not slow down the dangerously worsening dynamics of panic any longer. On 10.1.2020 Wen- liang, and shortly afterwards also his parents, developed the symptoms of pneumonia. Li Wenliang isolated himself because he was convinced that he had been infected with the SARS virus the day before in an au- gen patient. This also increased the panic. creation of a genetic strand of the The attending physicians carried out a large number of different tests, all of which turned out negative. As his state of health deteriorated and more and more people showed public sympathy for his fate, testing was continued until a first SARS test on 30.1.2020 was assessed as "positive". The disaster of the escalating SARS panic, which mutated into a global corona crisis, took its course. Li Wenliang spread this result on the Internet with the following words: "Today nucleic acid testing came back with a positive result, the dust has settled, finally diagnosed. "Today the genetic test came back positive, the dust has settled, finally diagnosed." This announcement increased the already existing panic. Everything got completely out of control when he published his signed cease-and-desist declaration of 3.1.2020 on the Internet. This publication of his cease-and-desist declaration, which was dangerous for him, was and still is considered by all panicked people as proof that there is a new SARS epidemic, because a doctor who is himself affected continues to inform and warn the public despite the threat of penalties. The panic increased further because Li Wenliang's health deteriorated despite the intensive use of a large number of antibiotic substances, and the public regularly took part in this. The situation was on the verge of escalating because the reporting of his death was more than chaotic and contradictory. This was and still is the central reason why the Chinese and global public assumed that another SARS outbreak occurred in Wuhan, which has been redefined as a new epidemic, a pandemic with a new name, Covid-19. 2. the one, of two possible causes of fear of Li Wenliang The fear of the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang is based on the events of 2003 in China, when western scientists claimed that an accumulation of atypical pneumonia had occurred in southern China. Two days after the mental allegedly new virus (SARS-CoV-1), in which Prof. Drosten was significantly involved,2 Prof. Drosten offered an alleged test procedure for this alleged virus.3 Approximately 800 people with atypical pneumonia, i.e. pneumonia in which no known pathogens are detected, but who tested "positive" with Prof. Drosten's test, therefore died - possibly wrongly and over-treated - with the diagnosis SARS, instead of "atypical pneumonia". The basis for maintaining and increasing the fear of SARS until 2019 is two publications in 20134 and 20175, which triggered speculation about the possibility of the appearance of new SARS corona viruses. The authors of both publications state that in healthy bats provides evidence for the existence of short gene sequences that can be interpreted as components of a virus. These short gene sequences would have similarities with those short gene sequences that were declared to be part of the alleged SARS corona virus-1 (SARSCoV-1) in 2003. SARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which is another description for the symptoms of atypical pneumonia. It is said about these intellectual (fictitious) genetic strands (which have been transformed into reality) that it is possible that they could also arise in reality and form a real virus. Such a harmless virus, which has been claimed in bats and other wild animals, could jump to humans through bite, contact or consumption and become a deadly killer. In humans, changes (mutations) could transform this harmless virus into a new SARS corona virus that could actually trigger a disease. Such an event and the resulting wave of diseases, such as atypical pneumonia, must be expected at any time. To date, virologists have not been able to isolate a SARS virus from a patient, bat, other animal, or in the laboratory, nor have they been able to identify an intact and complete genetic strand of a SARS virus. The assumption of the virologists that there are also viral genetic material strands in reality that are structured in the same way as the genetic material strands that are made up of short gene sequences could not be confirmed to date. Although the very simple standard techniques for determining the length of genetic sequences have been available for a long time, it has not yet been possible to prove the existence and presence of a complete genetic strand of a SARS virus in any other way. The fears massively stirred up by such false allegations were the basis of the fears of the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, as well as other physicians and infectiologists not only in Wuhan. These claims are the reason why, from 31 December 2019, the epidemiologists and virologists of the CCDC have focused on finding similar gene sequences that were defined in 2003 as components of SARS corona viruses (see further details below). 3. the second of the possible causes of fear by Li Wenliang The SARS and Corona crises started with the claim in the media that there is an accumulation of patients with atypical pneumonia. This claim was never substantiated. It was only claimed that the atypical pneumonia that occurred could be explained by the assumption of the appearance of a new virus, because some of the people with atypical pneumonia had contact with animal markets. To confirm the assumption that an unknown virus could be the cause of atypical pneumonia, known facts described in medical and scientific literature were suppressed. Indeed, there are several and wide spectra of noninfectious causes of atypical pneumonia. These atypical pneumonias are more likely to be fatal than typical pneumonia for several reasons. The causes include the inhalation of toxic fumes, solvents and substances. Also the penetration of food, drinks or stomach contents that reach the lungs in case of swallowing disorders or unconsciousness can cause severe pneumonia (aspiration pneumonia). Water alone is enough to enter the lungs of drowning persons to cause severe atypical pneumonia. A further cause is the recognized spectrum of immunological misbehavior, such as allergies and autoimmune reactions. It is also known that radiation triggers an inflammation of the lungs in cancer, which cannot be distinguished from typical pneumonia. Congestive pneumonia is particularly well known in older people. These occur due to water retention (edema), prolonged bed rest, heart and/or kidney weakness, which can lead to inadequate ventilation and blood circulation in the lungs and, as a direct consequence, to inflammation of the lungs, i.e. atypical pneumonia. Logically, a combination of otherwise lowthreshold causes also causes the atypical pneumonia. An atypical pneumonia can change very quickly into a typical one if secondary colonization of the inflamed lung occurs. This is the reason why the proportion of atypical pneumonia is probably higher than the estimated 2030%. The investigations of the five people documented in the two publications relevant to the corona crisis,6 did not investigate the possible presence or history, signs, mechanisms and effects of these known causes of atypical pneumonia. Virologists usually don't do that anyway, and the members of the CCDC were not able to do it even under the given circumstances of panic. Excluding the mention of atypical pneumonia is a serious medical malpractice and prevents correct treatment of patients. Those affected therefore run the risk of being mistreated with a cocktail of antibiotic substances rich in side-effects, which is capable of independently causing the death of patients, especially in the case of overdoses.7 It must be clear to everyone that extreme panic, especially in cases of respiratory problems, can independently cause death. Panic can even be fatal in a very short time, not only in cases of cardiovascular problems. The answer to the crucial question of whether a new virus has actually been detected or whether only short pieces of genetic material produced naturally in the body are being passed off as components of a virus or misinterpreted as such, is decisive for whether the corona crisis can be brought to a rapid end. As with H1N1, those responsible for the corona crisis say that it can only be ended by vaccination. However, the idea of vaccination has been refuted just as much as that of viruses. Helpful for the evaluation and classification of the events surrounding the triggering and maintenance of the Corona Crisis is the memory of the meanwhile forgotten swine flu pandemic of 2009, when the majority of the population was prepared to be vaccinated against the alleged swine flu viruses. Then there was a delay in the announced delivery of the vaccines. The vaccines could not be filled in ready-to-use syringes, as the novel active substance enhancers used for the first time damaged the vaccine mixture and rendered it unusable. For this reason, the vaccine was filled into ampoules for 10 persons at a time, into which the active substance enhancers could only be added shortly before the act of vaccination. During this time, it became known that the drug amplifiers, called adjuvants, without which a vaccine could not develop its effect, were novel and untested. It became known that these novel drug amplifiers consist of nanoparticles. It is known about nanoparticles that they are very reactive due to their tiny size and are therefore used as catalysts in many chemical reactions and, for example, cause the surfaces to behave completely differently in technical processes than can be achieved with conventional methods. Then it became known that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Armed Forces were to receive this vaccine but without the novel nanoparticle active ingredient, whereas the police and the population were to receive the vaccine with the untested nanoparticles. As a result, 93% of the population rejected the vaccine produced for them. Only 7% of Germans have had this vaccine administered. The human metabolism cannot metabolise and excrete nanoparticles. Because of this refusal on the part of almost the entire population, the swine flu actually disappeared from one evening to the next morning, as if by magic, from the media into the sinking and the vaccines into a blast furnace. (A small polemic is allowed: astonishingly, the swine flu virus H1N1 took off in a pig gallop, did not infect other people, did not make the infected sick, and its media presence was stopped. Perhaps the swine flu virus has turned into fish flu virus to swim up the rivers in the bodies of salmon, only to strike again with concentrated force at the fish market in Wuhan). The epidemiologists, infectiologists and virologists involved have learned from the failure of pandemic planning, which did not reach the peak of vaccination. They analysed the causes and published their findings and recommendations for the future in issue No. 12, December 2010 of the Bundesgesundheitsblatt. The meaningful title of this issue: "Pandemics. Lessons learned" Which means The lessons we have learned from the H1N1 swine flu debate! Some of the articles contained in this issue are available on the Internet,8 but the most important ones are not. The key recommendations for pandemic management are - Ensuring that experts do not contradict each other in public discussions. - Early involvement of leading and social media. - Control of the Internet. This in order to prevent claims and criticism from jeopardizing the consensus and acceptance of the measures in politics and society. These recommendations have now been successfully implemented! The Internet is censored, critics are excluded by insults, among other things. The compelling arguments that have made it into the public domain, which are based on the assumption of a pandemic, are simply not addressed. Only one expert, Prof. Drosten, is heard in the media and politics. The only "criticism" of him, presented by an HIV virologist, had the function of strengthening the central claim of existence of a new type of virus, SARSCoV-2. 4. the globalisation of the Chinese SARS virus panic and setting the course for the corona crisis by Prof. Drosten Prof. Christian Drosten from the Charité in Berlin claims that from 1.1.2020 he has developed a genetic detection method with which he can reliably prove the presence of the new corona virus in humans.8 On 21.1.2020, the WHO recommended the test method he had developed to the Chinese and all nations as a reliable test procedure for detecting the spread of the alleged new corona virus.10 In order a) to be able to understand which assumptions and which actions form the basis of Prof. Drosten's claims and b) to check whether his conclusions to have developed a safe test procedure for the new corona virus are logically and scientifically proven or not, or even refuted, it is necessary to explain the terms and techniques used, to present his argumentation and to analyse the two decisive publications to which Prof. Drosten refers. - How are a virus and a corona virus defined? - How are sequences defined in this context? - How do the detection methods of sequences known as PCR, RT-PCR and real-time RTPCR work? - When may proof of the presence of sequences in humans be used as evidence of the presence of a virus? - How is the existence of a virus scientifically proven? Terms - In science, a virus is defined by its specific genetic material, which is unique to that virus. - The genetic material of a virus is also called the viral genetic strand, the viral genetic molecule or its genome. - The viral genetic material of a virus successively contains the different genetic sequences for the formation of the various viral proteins, known as viral genes. - The genetic material of a virus can consist of either the two types of genetic molecules, DNA or RNA. - Corona viruses are defined by the fact that they consist of a specific molecule of RNA surrounded by an envelope. - The genetic material of a particular virus is defined by its precisely determined length and the exact determination of the structure of the viral genetic strand. - The composition of the genetic material of a virus results from the exact determination of the number and specific sequence of the four building blocks of which a genetic material consists. The four building blocks of a genetic material are called nucleotides. - The process of determining the specific sequence of the four building blocks of a genetic material is called sequencing. - The result of determining the sequence of the building blocks of a genetic material is called a sequence or genetic sequence. - Disease causing viruses are defined by the fact that their sequence is unique and does not occur in healthy organisms. - In order to be able to detect and determine the presence of the genetic material of a virus, this virus must be isolated and be present in its pure form in accordance with the laws of thought and the logic which precedes every science as a fundamental rule, so that gene sequences which are not cell-specific are misinterpreted as components of a virus. - The determination of the sequence of a genetic substance is only possible if it is present in the form of DNA. - In order to determine the sequence of a genetic substance that is present in the form of RNA, it must first be biochemically converted into DNA. - The process of converting a genetic substance from RNA into DNA is called "reverse transcription" and is abbreviated as "RT". The techniques used by Prof. Drosten and first conclusions - The presence and length of a genetic material is determined by separating it lengthwise in an electric field. Short pieces move faster, longer pieces move slower. At the same time, in order to be able to determine the length of the genetic material to be examined, pieces of genetic material of different lengths with known length are added. This reliable standard technique for the detection and determination of the length of genetic material is called "gel electrophoresis". - If the concentration of a certain genetic substance is too low to be detected by the technique of "gel electrophoresis", it can be increased at will by the technique of unlimited multiplication of DNA, called polymerase chain reaction. In this way, undetectable DNA can be made visible in gel electrophoresis. This is a prerequisite for making genetic material accessible for further investigations, especially for the subsequent decisive determination of its length and sequence. This method is also known as PCR for short. The inventor of the PCR technique, Karry Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993, pointed out early on that this, his, for cleanroom analysis in computer chip factories is very error-prone. In his Nobel Prize speech, which is documented on the website of the Nobel Prize Committee, he also pointed out that there is no verifiable, actually scientific proof that the genetic substance known as the genome of HIV actually causes an immune deficiency or one of the various diseases that are unlawfully grouped together under the term "AIDS" and treated with highly toxic chemotherapy. He pointed out that there is only a consensus among participating scientists that "HIV" would trigger an immune deficiency. To be able to propagate a DNA with the PCR technique, knowledge of the composition, the sequence of the DNA is required. A DNA can only be multiplied by PCR if short, artificially produced gene fragments bind to the beginning and the end of the DNA, which correspond exactly to the sequence of the beginning and the end of the DNA to be multiplied. These short pieces of artificially produced DNA are therefore called primers, the starter molecules of PCR. They are on average between 24 and 30 nucleotides (the building blocks of genetic material) long. Thus, PCR cannot be used to detect unknown sequences or unknown viruses. Only the determination of the sequence of a virus makes it possible to develop a PCR test for the detection of a gene sequence originating from a virus. - In the early days of PCR, it was only possible to determine the amount of amplified DNA by gel electrophoresis after the PCR amplification reaction had stopped. In the meantime, certain dyes are added to the enzymes and substances required for the PCR. The detection of these colorants during the course of the PCR shows approximately which concentrations of artificially propagated DNA were produced and how much DNA was actually present at the start of the PCR. Because the amount of artificially produced DNA can be approximately determined while the PCR technique is still running, this extension of the PCR technique is called "re- al-time PCR". A "real-time PCR", which is preceded by another step, the conversion of RNA into DNA by means of "reverse transcription" (RT), is therefore called "real-time RT- PCR". - Prof. Drosten uses the technique of "real-time RT-PCR" in the test he has developed for the detection of the new corona virus. For this purpose, he selected short genetic sequences from a data pool on the Internet on 1 January 2020 that are attributed to SARS viruses. On the basis of these sequences of short gene fragments, which are interpreted as possible components of SARS viruses, he designed the PCR primer sequences decisive for the PCR in order to detect the "still" unknown virus in China with his "real-time RT-PCR". When preliminary compilations of sequences appeared on the Internet on 10.1. and 12.1.2020, which were subsequently modified and published on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020,11 this represented the result of the first two attempts to identify the still unknown virus. The virologists of the CCDC use computer programs to theoretically combine the sequences of short gene fragments into a possible genetic strand together. The virologists of the CCDC state in both publications that there is no evidence that these sequence suggestions can actually cause diseases. On 10.1. and 12.1.2020 the Chinese sequence proposals were still provisional and had not yet been subjected to the strict process of scientifically prescribed review. The fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends the PCR detection test developed by Prof. Drosten for the detection of the new virus on 21.1.2020, even before the publication of the publications of the first two Chinese sequence proposals, is a first factual evidence: Prof. Drosten used scientifically untested data for his rapidly globalised PCR test of the 2019-nCoV, which was renamed SARS-CoV-2 on 7.2.202012 with the collaboration of Prof. Drosten. The renaming on 7.2.2020 of the name "nCoV" to "SARS-CoV-2", a mere virus presumption of a possibly defective or harmless virus, into a dangerous pathogen, gave the public the impression that an actual SARS virus had been discovered in China, which causes a dangerous disease, namely SARS, and killed the new idol of China, Li Wenliang, who dwarfed the party leadership. Prof. Drosten and his colleagues of the virus nomenclature group thus fulfilled the expectations of the population, who were terrified to the core and the bone: "finally diagnosed", "finally diagnosed". This expectation was awakened by the momentum of the mass panic triggered by Dr. med. Li Wengling and apparently fulfilled by Prof. Drosten. Crucial in assessing this act is the fact that at that time all the virologists directly involved testified - and still testify today - that there is no evidence that this new virus actually causes disease. Or does it only occur in parallel with diseases, during healing processes, after healing processes, with some healthy people, with many healthy people or with all people? This alone proves that Prof. Drosten has crossed the clearly recognizable border of scientifically justified action to a recognizable and momentous fraud. He will also not be able to excuse himself by using a journal for the publication of his test procedure on 23.1.202013 which does not check the statements made in it before going to press. 5. those for a quick termination of the Corona crisis decisive questions The central and all-decisive question is whether Prof. Drosten has fulfilled his scientific obligation, which is part of his employment contract,14 to himself and consistently verify all the assertions made in his publication about the detection method he developed and the public statements based on it. This central scientific duty gives rise to three central questions: I. Did Prof. Drosten check whether the gene sequences, which are the basis of his test procedure and which he received from Chinese virologists, are actually sequences that originate from a virus? II. Did Prof. Drosten carry out the control experiments that are mandatory in science to prove whether the sequences he used actually originated from a virus? Did he carry out the control experiments to check whether the sequences he uses, which he ascribes to the new virus, are in reality not sequences that are produced in every metabolism, perhaps even in plants, such as Tanzanian papayas15 , or that are produced in increased quantities in the metabolism of diseases? III On the basis of which assumptions, experiments and control experiments can Prof. Drosten claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects partial areas of 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease-causing virus? And not just fragments of a virus, after an assumed successful battle of the immune system or the presence of "defective" or "incomplete" or "harmless" viruses in our genetic material, which are typical and make up 50% of the genetic masses of our chromosomes? The answers result from the documented actions of Prof. Drosten during the development of the test procedure and from the documented nonactions of Prof. Drosten until today. The virologist Prof. Drosten, who developed the detection method for the new corona virus (first referred to as 2019-nCoV then, from 7.2.2020 as SARS-CoV-2), describes the development of the test method in a publication published on 23.1.2020.16 On page 3 of this article, left column, 8 lines from below, he describes the first and decisive step of his approach: "Prior to the announcement of public virus sequences from 2019-nCoV cases, we relied on social media reports announcing the detection of a SARS-like virus. That's why we assumed that a SARS-related CoV was involved in the outbreak. ("Before public release of virus sequences from ca- ses of 2019-nCoV, we relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARSlike virus. We thus assumed that a SARSre- lated CoV is involved in the outbreak.") This means that Prof. Drosten and his colleagues have assumed, based on reports in the social media, that the alleged outbreak of atypical pneumonia could involve a SARS-related corona virus. At that time, no clinical data were available that could have formed the basis for such a presumption. What was his next move? "We have downloaded all complete and partial (average length >400 nucleotides) of SARS-associated viral quences that were available on the GenBank on January 1, 2020". Continue in the right column of page 3, 3rd row from the top: "We aligned these sequences [Note from me, SL: against a given standard SARS virus sequence] and used the aligned sequences to develop our tests (Figure S1 in the supplement to this publication). "After the publication of the first 2019 nCoV sequence on virological.org, we selected three tests based on how well they matched the 2019 nCoV genome (Figure 1). ("We downloaded all complete and partial (if >400 nt) SARS-re-lated virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020. [... .] These sequences were aligned and the alignment was used for assay design (Supplementary Figure S1). Upon release of the first 2019-nCoV sequence at virological.org, three assays were selected based on how well they matched to the 2019- nCoV genome (Figure 1). His remarks resulted in clear answers, conclusions and consequences: I. Has Prof. Drosten checked whether the gene sequences that are the basis of his test procedure and that were provided by Chinese virologists are actually sequences that originate from a virus? The answer is no! He could not check whether the offered sequences originated from a virus, because the two decisive publications describing the extraction of the gene sequences used by him were not available to him before the market launch of his test. II. Did Prof. Drosten carry out the control experiments that are mandatory in science to prove whether the sequences he used actually came from a virus? Did he carry out control experiments to find out whether the sequences he ascribes to the new virus are actually sequences that are produced in every metabolism, maybe even in plants, or whether they are produced in increased numbers in the metabolism of diseases? The answer is: No! Neither he, nor the virologists of the CCDC, nor others have demonstrably carried out these necessary control experiments to this day and if they have, they have not published them. For these decisive control experiments, short gene sequences of the metabolism of healthy persons must be used to sequence them. These short gene sequences, like the gene sequences from sick people, must be assembled with the same computer programs to form the long genetic strand of a virus. This attempt was either never made or never published. There is not even a mention of this compelling attempt to control - in order to consistently control one's own results - resulting from the laws of thought and the logic of virology. The moment this experiment is carried out and published, the corona crisis is immediately over. The other control test, which is based on scientific logic, is the intensive PCR procedure (re- al-time RT-PCR) developed to test clinical samples from people with diseases other than those attributed to the virus, and to test whether these samples also test "positive" using samples from healthy people, animals and plants. These further control experiments, which are logically necessary to establish a test procedure validate, i.e. to check whether it is valid and has a conclusive force, have not been carried out to date, nor have they even claimed to have been carried out. For this reason, the inventors and producers of these test procedures have ensured themselves by means of corresponding information on the package inserts, e.g. that the test is only to be used for study purposes and is not suitable for diagnostic purposes. I can predict with certainty that people who release increased gene sequences from the tissue type of squamous epithelia, e.g. kidney patients, will be tested 100% "positive" with the PCR developed by Prof. Drosten at the latest when their smear quantity is multiplied and concentrated a little. It is very likely that all organisms can even be tested positive. I call on biochemists, bioinformaticians, virologists and cell culture specialists to carry out these control experiments, to publish them and to inform me about them. I have designed a control experiment which excludes from the outset the excuse that the sample material used was contaminated with the SARS Cov-2 virus before or during the control experiment. The costs for the execution of the control experiments are covered if I and neutral observers are allowed to be present during the execution of the control experiments and each step is documented. Please contact the publishing house for the establishment of contact. The results put an immediate end to the corona crisis. It is of no use if only I present the results of the control experiments. III On the basis of which assumptions, experiments and control experiments can Prof. Drosten claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects partial areas of only 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease-causing virus and not just fragments of a virus, after a pleasantly successful battle of the immune system or through the presence of the numerous "defective", "incomplete" and "harmless" viruses in our genetic material? Prof. Drosten did not consider these logical questions at all, because they do not appear anywhere in his publications and claims. The detection of only short gene sequences from a long genome strand of a virus can never prove the presence of an intact and therefore multipliable virus. In order to be able to call such a PCR test a va- lide, studies would first have to be undertaken whose results show that the detection of short gene sequences automatically also detects the presence of a whole and intact genetic strand of a virus. Such logically compelling studies have not yet been conducted or mentioned. Prof. Karin Mölling, the leading virologist in the field of cellassociated viruses, which are considered endogenous, harmless, incomplete or defective, described the measures taken at the beginning of the corona crisis as unjustified. She has shown in publications and in a book17 that half of the genetic material of humans, i.e. half of the sequences, of which our chromosomes consist, consists of inactive and defective gene sequences of viruses. What it does not know, or hides, is that the metabolism constantly produces a large amount of RNA gene sequences of any composition, which do not appear in the form of DNA sequences in the chromosomes. This fact calls into question the claims of existence of all RNA viruses, such as corona viruses, Ebola virus, HIV, measles virus and SARS viruses. This fact is also the basis why control experiments are used not only to end the Coro- na crisis, but also the fear and mistreatment by the entire virology of the alleged disease viruses immediately. I can assure you that the actual causes and phenomena of infection attributed to viruses are proven in the "positive" sense of the word "science". I refer to the previous article "Misinterpretation Virus" in the magazine WissenschafftPlus No. 1/2020, which can also be purchased as a pdf-file. And of course to the many previous contributions around this question. The continuation "Misinterpretation Virus III" follows. Quellen 1ANovelCoronavirusfromPatientswithPneumonia inChi- na,2019.N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 727-33.DOI: 10.1056/NEJ- Moa2001017.Verö ffentlichtam24.1.2020. 2VonderVerantwortungeinesVirologen.IstChristian DrostenOpferoderTä ter?Verö ffentlichtimBlogdes Frie- densaktivistenPeterFrey,peds-ansichten.deam 26.5.2020. SARS,Wikipedia. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweres_akutes_Atemwegssyndrom(Eintragvom 29.5.2020);4Xing-YiGeetal.,Isolationand characterizationofabatSARS-like coronavirus that usestheACE2receptor.Nature.Band503,2013,S. 535–538,doi:10.1038/nature12711; 5DiscoveryofarichgenepoolofbatSARS-related coronaviru-sesprovidesnewinsightsintotheorigin ofSARScoronavirus.BenHu,Lei-PingZeng,Xing-Lou Yangetal.,PLoSPathogens.13(11):e1006698, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698; 6SieheQuelle1und:Anewcoronavirusassociated withhumanrespiratorydiseaseinChina.Nature|Vol 579|12March2020|265-269. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3. Verö ffent-licht am 3.2.2020.; 7PathologicalfindingsofCOVID-19associatedwith acuterespi-ratorydistresssyndrome.LancetRespir Med2020;8:420–22.PublishedOnlineFebruary17, 2020.https://doi.org/10.1016/S22132600(20)30076-X; 8Bundesgesundheitsblatt,AusgabeNr.12,Dezember 2010.Pandemien.Lessonslearned https://link.springer.com/jour-nal/103/53/12; 9Detectionof2019novelcoronavirus(2019-nCoV)by real-timeRT-PCR.Prof.ChristianDrostenund Mitarbeiter.EuroSurveill.2020;25(3):pii=2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917. ES.2020.25.3.2000045.Verö ffentlichtam23.1.2020. 10Diagnostika:ErsterTestfü rneuartigesCoronavirus entwi-ckelt.MedicaMagazinvom21.1.2020. https://www.medica.de/ de/News/Archiv/Diagnostika; 11Siehe6; 12Severeacuterespiratorysyndrome-related coronavi-rus:Thespeciesanditsviruses–a statementoftheCo-ronavirusStudyGroup.bioRxiv preprintdoi:https://doi. org/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862; 13Siehe9; 14§2Grundsä tzeGuterWissenschaftlicherPraxis:(1)u.a.„alleErgebnissekonsequentselbstanzuzweifeln“ und„dieaner-kanntenGrundsä tzewissenschaftlicher Arbeitindeneinzel-nenDisziplineneinzuhalten.“In: NeufassungderSatzungderCharité Universitä tsmedizinBerlinzurSicherungGuter WissenschaftlicherPraxisvom20.06.2012(AMB Charité Nr.092,S.658)Zufindenunter: https://www.charite.de/fileadmin/ user_upload/portal/charite/presse/publikationen/a mtl-mittei-lungsblatt/2016/AMB_208.pdf; 15WiemitdenBefundeninderOffentlichkeit umgegangenwird,dassauchFrü chte„positiv“auf „SARS-Cov-2“getestetwerdenist,findenSie beispielhafthier:https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-papaya-ziege-tansaniatest-100.html 16Siehe9; 17SiehedasBuchvonKarinMö lling mit dem interessantenTitel„Viruses:MoreFriendsThan Foes“,420Seiten,das2016auchaufDeutsch erschienenist.

Latest posts