Corona simple and understandable

The Virus Misconception part III, Corona simple and understandable.
by Dr. Stefan Lanka. Rewritten from translation by Northern Tracey (that's me)

image.png

The people of our cultural system are taught something that
is no longer questioned today and is regarded as fact – that bi-
ological life came into being by chance from molecules colliding
and interacting with each other. These molecules are
presumed to have been created by atoms accidentally colliding
with each other, which in turn are said to have been created out
of nothing by a Big Bang. It is assumed that within a sphere of
water said to be held together by a shell of fats and
proteins, many molecules with certain properties came to-
gether in the distant past and the interactions of the molecules,
(called metabolism) would maintain and multiply this sphere.

Despite all the assurances, pictures and schematic drawings in the textbooks this presumed model of a cell, bears no resemblance to reality. They claim
that all life arose by chance from a simple primordial cell. After
death, they claim that nothing else remains except mol-
ecules, which also decay back into atoms. Only those mole-
cules that enter a cell are said to be living, everything else
is dead, cold, even space is empty, all lacking any life force or possibilities
of independent interaction . Life, it is assumed, only
developed into more complex organisms such as trees or hu-
mans because some accumulations of cells (so-called living be-
ings) are stronger and more sophisticated so reproducing
more effectively over others. If you look at the power
and economic structures throughout the development of our
cultural system up to the present day, it is obvious that re-
spective attitude towards life and the view of ‘experts’
continues to shape our concept of biological life.

Perhaps the most essential cause of this one-dimensional and
dangerous world view is the rational mind
where it is considered absolute and any insights generated from
it are not to be questioned. When rationality
rules and is not challenged
other available tools are ignored in approaching the phenomena of life.
In order to help us understand and face this challenge,
Jochen Schamal wrote a basic introduction in his article
Mathematics and Reason in issue 3/2020 of w+, in which
he identifies the core fundamental challenge facing
human beings. If the mind is used as an aid to humankind,
everything is fine; if it is used absolutely, we automatically end
up in self-perpetuating good versus evil paradigms as with ‘Corona’, in manifest wars and in many other areas of life. The undoubted effects of these good v. evil patterns are interpreted as proof of the existence of an active principle of evil.

If we look at life “objectively” in the positive sense of the word,
we see only creative processes of cooperation, of symbiosis,
expressing and increasing a ‘joie de vivre’ (joy of life) as the driving force of
life. Even in the triggering of the processes that we mistakenly
think of as diseases and malignancy, we find only helpful
mechanisms and processes if we observe them objective-
ly. Events or perceptions that are threatening or perceived as
life threatening have been identified as the triggers.
After these processes are triggered, the relevant bodily functions, but
also processes in the psyche, perception and behaviour,
magnify or change in order to escape the threat or increase the chance of survival. Where relevant, tissues are built up or
broken down to aid survival.

In the recovery process, which starts instantaneously
as soon as the triggering event is resolved or the relationship to
it can be put into perspective, the body tries to restore it’s
original form by breaking down or building it up again. Compli-
cations can arise if one or more triggers had a long and
intensive effect, overlapped with other triggers, or new triggers
were added through diagnostic shocks or resulting life circum-
stances. In these cases the healing and its known processes are
made more difficult. Healing is also impeded if the triggering
events are mentally and psychologically clung to and if deficien-
cies and poisoning are at work. In this issue of w+ we present
the book Universal Biology, which introduces this point of view. These insights were discovered by the physician Dr. Ryke Geerd
Hamer from 1981 onwards through very precise observations.
Unfortunately, Dr. Hamer himself stood in the
way of the dissemination of his constructive medical discover-
ies due to his own unobjective polemics.

Dr. Hamer thus significantly developed the previously psychoso-
matic science, which had its peak in Germany in 1977 but lost
its way in material attempts at interpretation. By individualis-
ing the observations, detached from biochemical and genetic
attempts at interpretation and by discovering specific signals
in the brain – specific to each physical and mental triggering process,
healing and healing crises- his view became scien-
tific. His observations and the explanations derived from them
are verifiable and comprehensible, the processes are predictable,
so that accurate diagnoses, causal therapy and effective
prophylaxis become possible. Most importantly, this meant that the
‘death sentences’ called “incurable” and “malignant” could be
replaced with understanding so losing their destructive
effects.

It is understandable that people who only perceive established and
physical explanations of life, health, illness, recovery and old
age as true will have difficulty with this view. The same applies to
people who base their self-confidence and identity on their learned view
or who derive their livelihood from it. In her article “What you
and others can learn from Corona” in this issue of w+, Ursula
Stoll shows why people react aggressively when confronted with
an alternative view and what you can do not only to avoid this but
to awaken genuine interest in changing their view. This is absolutely
essential. We will only get out of the circular reasoning that led to the Corona crisis if a large major-
ity of people open up to a better understanding and leave their
destructive ideas and the resulting mechanisms behind. From this
perspective, Corona can be an opportunity for all and
a turning point towards a leap in humanity’s development. It
is unlikely and perhaps even dangerous if these new insights,
which challenge the old view and the industries attached to it,
are dictated “from above”.

The virus as a disease agent
Disease, pain, even old age and death of the body are seen
in a purely material world view as defects to be
fought. Promises of cures and eternal life are regularly touted,
which the “grateful population” (Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

  1. fund with increasing sums of money.
    Since 1858, it was believed that all life arises
    from a cell as a result of purely material processes, but also all
    diseases, in that the cell is said to produce disease causing products,
    ‘disease venoms’ (in Latin -viruses). Until 1951, the idea of a virus
    was defined as a pathogenic agent, a toxic protein, a toxin. In the
    years before, some scientists doing actual science, checked their
    assumptions, namely by control experiments. In doing so, they
    found two things: the decomposition of completely healthy
    tissues and organs produces the same proteins as the de-
    composition of “diseased” material, which was misinterpreted
    as viruses. Furthermore animal testing methods caused the symp-
    toms of the ‘diseases’ rather than the proteins misinterpreted as viruses that were blamed as the triggers.

Few doctors and only very attentive readers of professional
journals noticed that science, as it had often been in the past,
had no fixed idea of what viruses actually are. The idea of viruses has always been used for this purpose: a
failed attempt to explain phenomena that cannot be
explained within their respective world view. Since the invention
and application of alleged virus testing procedures, the inher-
ent mechanism for generating fear has been greatly accelerated.
This creation of fear is becoming much more effective globally
because of the industrialisation of the detection tech-
niques and because of the economically-induced synchro-
nisation of “information.” The current result: a self-imposed blockade
of the industrialised countries and their population through
insane lockdowns, which are justified pseudo-rationally, i.e.
pseudo-scientifically. It hasn’t yet become apparent or ac-
knowledged that a purely rational approach to the phenome-
non of life, excluding compassion and other perceptions, becomes a good v bad religion itself that seeks good, but creates evil in the process. Any unquestionable system pertaining to life, illness and recovery is dangerous and
leads to deadly consequences, even within
the Hamer system of knowledge, if it is set in absolute
terms and viewed in isolation, because we, as participants in
life, lack an overview of the whole.

The pure materialistic cell theory of life introduced extremely
unscientifically in 1858 quickly became the
global basis of biology and medicine, a restricted view of the
phenomena of life, a dangerous forced logic resulting in a forceful reac-
tion. If I explain life purely materialistically, the
triggers of age, deviations from normality (=diseases), the si-
multaneous or clustered occurrence of symptoms can and will
be interpreted only as material defects and blamed on
assumed flying disease agents. Within this idea disease pro-
cesses and disease carriers have to be fought and suppressed.
Notions of antibiosis, antibiotics, radiation,
chemotherapy and isolation were therefore invented for this purpose. In 1976,
Ivan Illich showed in his book Medical Nemesis that medicine
is also subject to the pressures of profiteering and therefore forces
those involved to exaggerate. For this reason alone, medicine has
automatically, insidiously and without our noticing, become more and
more dangerous in many areas. This compulsion to exagger-
ation thereby makes the false belief in viruses more and
more dangerous.

The false hypothesis of the cell, revived the (wrong) theory of the virus, (previously abandoned) and
ignited the emergence not only of the
infection, immune and gene theories, but also the dominant
basis of our cancer ‘medicine’. Whoever regards cancer as er-
ror, arbitrariness or self-destruction in nature, believes in wan-
dering evil and the idea of metastases, therefore also believing in
flying metastases, aka ‘viruses’. Here the circle closes. Education
and information about “Corona”, in which these historical crimes are not
mentioned, automatically strengthens these foundations and mis-
conceptions, which are the actual cause of ‘Corona’.

This materialistic view of life results in another deeper, coercive
logic, namely that of material heredity (genetics). Today science assumes
that only material interactions exist, all other
explanations are unscientific and idiotic. This way of thinking
led to a constructional and functional
theory of life. One that contains instructions on how the alleged cell
produces an organism with the help of its constituent molecules
and the energetic currents gathered in it. Until 1951 the prevailing
public opinion claimed that proteins carry the construction
and functional plan of life. It was believed that proteins were the
carriers of a hereditary substance. Within this imaginary world
a hereditary substance MUST be claimed to be present in order to
explain the origin of organisms from a cell. So the claimed
toxic proteins (the pre-1951 definition of viruses) were
attributed with the property of carrying the blueprint to reproduce
themselves inside of the theoretical toxic protein.

The change of ideas in virology
Since 1952, when the idea that the hereditary substance is the
material found in the nuclei of tissues and cells finally pre-
vailed, there was a change of ideas, a so-called para-
digm shift with regards to viruses. Since this paradigm shift, viruses
were and are claimed to be travelling genetic elements, which,
after entering the cell force it to reproduce the vi-
rus. In this assumed multiplication, the cells are supposed to
be damaged, thereby causing diseases. The class of molecules
considered to be hereditary since 1952 are known as nucleic ac-
ids because they behave like a weak acid in aqueous solution
and are mainly found in the center of the nucleus. Until the year
2000, it was believed that segments could be found of these
molecules, some of which are very long, that would carry the
blueprint for the construction and function of life. Genes were
described as the smallest unit of the hereditary substance, and
they were thought to carry information about how individual proteins
are constructed. However, results obtained experimentally
in biochemical genetics disproved all previous assumptions. In
view of these results, no scientist today is able to
formulate a tenable definition of a gene that has not been dis-
proved long ago.

In each nucleus the composition of the nucleic acids is constant-
ly changing and for about 90% of our proteins no “genetic tem-
plates” can be found which could be called genes. The nucleic
acid probably serves primarily as an energy releaser and only
secondarily as a metabolic resonator and stabiliser. With the
exception of some researchers, almost all employed biologists
and physicians cling to the idea of a hereditary substance de-
spite the known refutations because they simply have no other
theory plus their imagination suffers under pressure to conform
and career anxiety. For this reason virology should also have
waved goodbye to all previous assumptions about material heredity,
for the second time long ago because the genetic theory
underlying today’s virology turns out to be a misinterpretation.

A virus was defined as a non-living pathogen consisting of
a piece of dangerous hereditary substance made up of several
genes, which can be found in an ‘envelope’ or can be completely
naked. The assumption is that this strand of genetic material en-
ters a cell, the viral genetic material takes control of the cell and
forces it to reproduce the virus, damaging or even killing first the
cell and eventually the whole organism. It is thought that after
multiplying, the virus leaves the damaged organism to damage
other organisms. This theory is destroyed by the refutation of
cell theory, since life is mainly organised in interconnected tis-
sues and there being very few structures that can be really called
cells*. Virus theory is destroyed by the
refutation of genetics. Virus theory is also refuted by an improved
understanding of (new) biology and the discovery of those symbiotic pro-
cesses in ‘disease’ – healing and the healing crises’ which confirm
through observations that existentially long-lasting
events or perceptions trigger the potentially multiphasic pro-
cesses which have hitherto been misinterpreted as different dis-
eases. Knowledge of biology refutes virology. In real life there is
no principle of an evil that merely takes yet leaves nothing.

Refutation of the whole of virology, easily recog-
nisable by everyone
Virology claims to isolate viruses in the laboratory and from
these isolated particles, claims to find the genetic material to
determine their structure. In no published claim of isola-
tion of a virus is there a description of an actual structure that
has been isolated. On the contrary, experimentally produced
death of tissues in the laboratory is misinterpreted as the ef-
fect of viruses because it is assumed that the tissues die
because supposedly infected body fluids are added. In reality,
the tissues die because they are no longer nourished and are
killed by toxic antibiotics. Never, except for the measles virus
trial, have any control experiments been carried out that would
disprove the virus assumption, because the tissues always die
from starvation and poisoning without the need to add addi-
tional supposedly infected material. On the basis of a single publication from 1954
https://pubmedinfo.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/propagation-in-tissue-cultures-of-cytopathogenic-agents-from-patients-with-measles.pdf.
pdf, the decayed tissue is assumed to transform into viruses
when it dies. In this publication, it is emphasised several times
that the assumption of tissue death due to a virus and the as-
sumed transformation of the tissues into viruses is only specu-
lation that would have to be proven or disproven in the future.
It was only through the subsequent Nobel Prize for the first au-
thor, John Franklin Enders, for an earlier speculation within the
old, protein-toxin virology, that this tissue-to-virus conversion
idea became a supposed scientific fact and the sole basis of
this new ‘genetic virology’.

The model for the new virology came from the bacteri-
ologist John Franklin Enders – the discovery of tiny structures
called phages that are only visible under an electron mi-
croscope, transformations from highly inbred, i.e. incestuous, bacteria
caused by their metabolism breaking down. This trans-
formation is not destructive, but a metamorphosis,
similar to how bacteria when the terrain becomes hostile morph into
permanent forms, the spores. These are also tiny, much smaller
than bacteria. Spores can change back into bacteria when living
conditions improve again.
Phages, on the other hand, donate their nucleic acid to
other organisms, which they are helping to survive/adapt not
trying to kill or harm. Phages are nevertheless regarded as the ‘viruses’
of bacteria, although phages are never able to damage or kill
naturally occurring bacteria or freshly isolated bacteria. It is
very likely that bacteria will develop again from phages if the
correct environment is provided. I have isolated and studied
a phage-like structure from the sea, one that algae produce
especially when their living conditions are no longer optimal.
Phages formed during the transformation of a specific, high-
ly inbred, i.e. an incestuous bacterial species, always have
the same structure, the same size, the same composition
and always an equally long and equally assembled nucleic
acid. The nucleic acid, which always has the same length and
composition, became the model for the new virus theory, the
gene-virus theory, in which a virus is a piece of
enveloped or naked genetic material of a certain length and
composition.
Phages can be isolated quite easily and their nucleic acid
extracted, which always has the same composition. In the
case of “genetic viruses” this is never true: no nucleic
acid is ever taken from the few structures that can be visual-
ised under the electron microscope and passed off as
viruses. The nucleic acid is always extracted from
the fluids in which the dying tissues were located. Crucially,
a whole nucleic acid has never been found that has the length and
composition of those schematic drawings and descriptions
of nucleic acids that virologists pass off as the genetic strand
or genome of their respective viruses.

The alignment, the easily recognisable
and essential refutation of all viral assumptions.
Any interested layman will find, in every claim of existence or
isolation of disease-causing viruses, that a length of nucleic acid
is theoretically constructed from very short pieces of nucle-
ic acid released when tissues die, which is then passed off
as viral nucleic acid deceiving both the scientist and everyone
else. This laborious composition of the
assumed viral nucleic acid, which can only be accomplished
with fast computers, was much more cumbersome when
done by hand at the beginning of gene virology, is called align-
ment. Every layman can recognise from the word alignment that a
long, supposedly viral nucleic acid was only ever constructed
theoretically. No-one ever claimed that an even remotely
complete nucleic acid has been extracted from a (viral)
structure or even from an “infected” liquid, the determination of
whose molecular sequence would correspond to the whole.
Only theoretically constructed nucleic acid.

Here the effective coercive logic to which virologists have
been subject since 1954 becomes apparent because the assump-
tion was made that tissues could also transform into viruses
when they die, just like very specific incestuously created bacteria
do when they transform into phages, those helpful struc-
tures that are misinterpreted as viruses of bacteria. Since
short pieces of nucleic acids, from which the postulated
disease-causing viruses with the mentally constructed viral
hereditary strands are found in every living being, all
humans and animals can test “positive”, depending on the
quantity and location of the sample to be tested. The bigger
the sample tested, the more positive results are produced, although
such a test result does not and cannot have any significance for
either health or disease.

In the case of Corona, it is particularly easy to see how virol-
ogists deceived themselves and others, which in this case
escalated into global hysteria and the Corona crisis through
the actions of a German virologist Prof. Christian Drosten.
In an attempt to get a grip on the panic of a new outbreak
of SARS triggered by a hysterical ophthalmologist, the virol-
ogists of the Chinese government theoretically constructed a
nucleic acid strand in the record time of one week by means of
computer programmes, which they said was almost identical
to harmless and difficult-to-transmit bat viruses. They used
only nucleic acids taken from the fluid of a bronchial wash
obtained from a person who died of pneumonia. They did not
use “cell cultures” in the laboratory supposedly infected
in order to harvest the presumed virus from them as is common
practice, nor did they claim to have obtained this nucleic acid
from an isolated structure.

It is likely that the Chinese virologists
theoretically constructed the nucleic acid of a “harmless”
virus: in order to dampen the wave of fear triggered
by the ophthalmologist of a possible new outbreak of a
dangerous corona virus SARS epidemic which could
result in the immediate overload of hospitals. Prof. Dros-
ten, on the other hand, did not wait for the Chinese scien-
tists to publish their final composition of a nucleic acid on
24.1.2020 before developing a test procedure to detect this
allegedly new viral nucleic acid using the PCR. In order to
develop his test procedure, he selected completely different
nucleic acids, which he knew to be present in every human
being, even before the preliminary data on the alleged new
viral gene sequence from China was published on 10 January

  1. The pieces of nucleic acids he selected, which do
    not come from the (constructed) genome strand of the Chi-
    nese virus, are the basis of the PCR test procedure.

The biochemicals to detect the pieces of nucleic acids selected
by Prof. Drosten by means of PCR – which do not originate from
the Chinese virus model – were sent free of charge on 11.1.2020,
“for humanitarian reasons”, to precisely those places where
it was known that returnees from Wuhan were being tested.
Positive test results were thus obtained from travellers from
Wuhan, which were presented to the public from 20.1.2020 as
proof of human-to-human transmission of the alleged new vi-
rus. The Chinese government had to bow to public pressure to
go along with a new epidemic because of this apparent evidence,
although all of the 49 people in Wuhan with pneumonia
of unknown origin were proven not to have infected family
members, friends or hospital staff with whom they were in
close contact.

Summarising the essentials to understand,
to end, and to learn from Corona.
There are no disease-causing viruses and, with knowledge of
real biology, they cannot exist. Viruses are only constructed
mentally by putting together very short pieces of nucleic ac-
ids, purely theoretically, into long pieces. These long mental
constructs, which do not exist in reality and have never been
discovered, are passed off as viruses. the process of mentally
stringing together very short pieces of nucleic acid into a theo-
retical and long nucleic acid is called alignment.
Since short pieces of nucleic acids, of which viruses are thought
to be composed, are released during all inflammatory process-
es, tissue formation, degradation and death, it is clear that all
people who experience inflammatory processes, tissue forma-
tion, degradation or death and from whom tissues and fluids
are collected for testing will test “positive” with the nucleic acid
detection technique – PCR.
Similarly, people automatically test positive if, when tested by
swabbing,
a.) too many mucous membranes are damaged,
b.) there is haemorrhaging as a result,
c.) the very sensitive olfactory bulb, a part of the brain,
is mechanically injured in the nasal cavity, or
d.) simply a very large volume of sample is taken,
because in the body, even in every natural body of water and
in all seas, an astonishingly intensive build-up and degradation
of nucleic acids of all kinds is constantly taking place. Among
them are always sequences from which the original genetic
strand of the virus was mentally constructed. The PCR virus test
only detects very short nucleic acids that are claimed to be part
of a virus. The test procedure to detect the alleged new Corona virus was
developed by Prof. Christian Drosten even before the nucleic
acid of the alleged new Corona virus was “decoded.” The Chi-
nese virologists who had mentally constructed the nucleic acid
of the alleged new virus using alignment, claimed that it was
never proven that this virus had the potential to produce
diseases. They assumed that the new virus was very similar to
harmless and difficult-to-transmit viruses in animals. The “positive”
results of Prof. Drosten’s PCR test were used to justify the claim
that the new virus was “definitely” detected and that there was
evidence of human-to-human transmission. These
rash actions of Prof. Drosten had the effect of escalating a local
SARS hysteria in Wuhan (triggered by an ophthalmologist) into a
global Corona crisis.

  • For further information on the refutation of traditional cell
    theory, see previous articles in wissenschafftplus.de

Taken from the original translation of WISSEnSCHAFFtPLUS magazin 03/2020 · Auszug
“The Virus Misconception part III, Corona simple and understandable” by Dr. Stefan Lanka
and rewritten. Original translation here: https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-3.pdf


H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
25 Comments