I want to address an argument that many in the so-called truth movement make in regards to “viruses” which is that the germ theory and terrain theory are not mutually exclusive. These are even false terms in my view, the correct terms are the germ hypothesis & terrain model.
I truly understand this false perspective that people may have and it’s easy to demonstrate this level of thinking by just throwing seeds on the concrete where nothing will happen with the seeds due to terrain being wrong but if we put the seeds in the soil they will start to grow because the terrain is in alignment with the seeds. Now I will only address this false argument in relation to “viruses” and not bacteria, fungi & parasites because bacteria, fungi & parasites actually exist while there is no evidence for the existence of “viruses”.
To all of you that hold this position, I would like you to answer this question: how can something that never been proven to exist in nature by the use of the scientific method ever be a cause of something regardless of the status of the terrain? To even entertain that argument we would first have to prove the existence of the “virus”, then and only then could we begin to argue from the experimental evidence if the germ hypothesis & terrain model are complementary in regards to “viruses”.
I would also like to say that in my view the terrain model got nothing to do with “viruses” because we would first have to prove the existence of “viruses” before we can begin to argue about how they may behave in various environments. This is why I constantly state in my interviews that there is nothing to debate here in regards to “viruses” because all “virologists”, institutions, scientists and researchers around the world are all in full agreement with the fact that they have never found an alleged “virus” directly from nature. This is also one of the reasons I have turned down debates because what is there to debate, either something exists or it doesn’t. It’s like arguing about the existence of unicorns, either we have found unicorns in nature or we haven’t.
There is no ambiguity here, there is no middle ground, period.
Not true. You miss the subtle part of the scam and do not distinguish between "medical viruses" and "natural viruses". there is a huge field of environmental virology. This is the field Lanka comes from. He discovered a new virus - now he wants to rename those organisms as something else. That's fair enough, as using different words may make the picture clearer. There are also isolation methods that do not contaminate the sample.
The huge irony here is that viruses form a large part of... the terrain! lmao.
I do not agree. Lanka at the time of the study falsely thought he had isolated a harmless "virus" but once he started to question things after the encouragement of his mentor he realized that it wasn't a "virus" at all, it is through this questioning of his that he discovered and realized that there are no "viruses". The whole field of "virology" is based on the unproven assumption that the samples they use contain "viruses" but no one has ever been able to isolate and purify a "virus" directly from a sample without the sample first being combined with other genetic material like a tissue culture. Should also note that I've debated "virologists" myself that have admitted this to me personally along with all of the freedom of information requests that me and other people have done that confirm this as well. The entire pseudo-scientific field of "virology" got many foundational issues because they do not follow the scientific method that have led them to unproven assumptions and lack of proper control experiments.
Which tissue cultures did Lanka use in his 1993 paper?
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
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/
Yes I'm seeing this a lot too and it feels like they have one leg dangling over the fence. It also feels like they can't quite yet grasp that germ theory is completely wrong. They are grasping at straws and mixing the old with the new. Like mixing oil and water tho they just don't gel. A lot of people lose a lot of money when the germ theory goes down so they will cling to it with everything they have. They can't seem to ditch the old 'immune theory' yet. We also have the new lot talking about terrain yet totally ignoring the writings on how to keep the terrain healthy. Ignoring the 'hygienists' who recommend a plant diet. How long will they keep that up for I wonder.
Hi, @johnblaid,
Thank you for your contribution to the Blurt ecosystem.
Your post was picked for curation by @famigliacurione.
Please consider voting for our Upkeep Proposal by Symbionts.