Here is his paper that I think you're referring to: http://web.archive.org/web/20170520025626/http://agenda-leben.de/Lanka_Ectocarpus_siliculosus.pdf
RE: Viruses are not part of the debate between the germ hypothesis & terrain model
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Viruses are not part of the debate between the germ hypothesis & terrain model
I know the paper - I have it - hence asking the question.
Am confused, why are you asking me then when the paper provide all of the information you are asking for?
Is very simple, and interesting you don't get it.
So I'm asking for proof of the statement in bold.
Environment virology does NOT use the same methods as medical virology precisely for that very reason, that they seek pure samples uncontaminated by interactions with other cell cultures.
It is a logical error to jump from "medical methods fabricate viruses" to "all viruses are fabricated".
I remain unconvinced, and see the scam as more subtle, in that precisely because viruses were discovered, and are difficult to isolate, that the fraudulent methods have got away with the fraud.
I don't see Lanka as having somehow UNdiscovered his discovery; what I see is a serious objection to classing viruses as pathogens, and hence they should be called something else, that would free scientists to truly understand their role.
I think they should be classed as nano-organisms - and do some serious experiments from scratch. It is even an interesting word, as seems largely unused, because viruses are not classed as "life", hence not "organisms". The scam runs deep.
Can you show me a paper that claim the isolation and purification of a "virus" directly from the sample without it first being combined with other genetic material like a tissue culture?
In Lanka's own words: "At the time I was still a student who had had the opportunity to work in a laboratory and using his findings on nucleic acid discovered a structure in a seaweed that I mistakenly defined as "a harmless virus". In reality, as I will explain in detail later, this structure was what is now called a "giant virus", which is really nothing more than a mini-spore similar to bacterial phages, which are also phages. So what I isolated was actually a "giant virus" but I classified it as a "harmless virus”. Today we know that mini-spores arise when the subsistence conditions of certain simple organisms - such as the bacteria or algae I worked with - become unsustainable.
--
It became clear to me that if I only criticised the postulate of a single virus and did not mention the rest, I was reinforcing the virus theory. And if I did not challenge the conceptual framework from which that theory springs, I was reinforcing it. At the end of the day, everything stems from the theory of cellular pathology according to which we are born from a cell, there are only material interactions and it is a "poison" - a word that means "virus" in Latin, by the way - that makes us sick. That is the scenario since Virchow coined this theory in 1858 although he was only "a child of his time”
--
In short, if one looks at what virologists do, one concludes that no, there is no such thing as a virus. Knowing the history we understand that it is in fact a wrong model and that the correct one was censored. Later I will discuss in detail the 7 points that virologists make to support their conclusions and how at each point they refute themselves. Dr. Hamer's system of knowledge in itself refutes Virology as a whole. Once I understood his theory, the veracity of which anyone can check with themselves, I knew that it was impossible for a virus to assault my body. Do viruses exist? No. Simply because they cannot exist. You look at what virologists publish and you realise that they refute themselves. They act in an unscientific way because they never carry out control tests of their experiments, which is the minimum necessary to be able to affirm that something is scientific or not."
Source: "Stefan Lanka DSalud Número 249 English (1 of 3)"
https://truthseeker.se/stefan-lanka-dsalud-numero-249-english-1-of-3/