You are here

Stefan Lanka: "Viruses are not microbes and have no infectious capacity" (III of III) – Dsalud

Average: 10 (1 vote)

"Stefan Lanka: "Viruses are not microbes and have no infectious capacity" (III of III) – Dsalud

The well-known German virologist Stefan Lanka asserts that viruses are neither microbes nor do they have infectious capacity, so that Covid-19 cannot have been caused by the alleged SARS-CoV-2, whose existence, moreover, has not been demonstrated. Furthermore he disputes that there is a pandemic, that there are millions of people infected and killed by this coronavirus, and that vaccines are justified since they are neither effective nor innocuous but very dangerous.This is what he affirmed - among many other things - during the extensive interview we had with him in which he reveals the farce that the world is living through due to the constant lies and manipulations of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the international drug agencies in complicity with the political leaders of most governments.

The exclusive interview that Stefan Lanka granted to our magazine is undoubtedly the most extensive, clarifying and controversial interview he has ever given. It is necessary to read it in its entirety to understand its importance and this is why we did not want to summarise it. Without further ado, we present the third and last part of it, which was held in two long sessions and will be broadcast shortly with simultaneous translation, since although he is fluent in English and has knowledge of Spanish, he expresses himself better in his mother tongue, German. Obviously, divided into several videos, given its length. Having said that, we will now transcribe the rest of the talk we had with him.

-The WHO claims that when we are vaccinated our immune system produces antibodies in the same way as when we are infected by a pathogenic microbe, with the difference that, being dead or having been weakened, they do not cause disease or complications, but only activate our defences preventively. Does this theory make sense? And if so, for how long would the organism maintain the "memory" of that microbe? Because if it were for a short time only, the vaccines would have to be periodically repeated. And if not, what are antibodies really?

-This question fits in perfectly with what we are discussing. What are antibodies? Medicine, immersed as it is in the idea of poison and anti- poison, believes it has found the anti-poison par excellence in small proteins defined as globulins. It postulates that if someone is ill and then heals, it is thanks to his defences, his antibodies. In fact when we are injured, the body produces globulins and sends them to the affected area - which has lost energy and is becoming acidified - small globules that "flatten" and intertwine to create new tissue and repair the damage. These globulins are defined as "antibodies" and are assumed to perform a function that they do not actually have. The idea that there are specific antibodies that bind only to specific proteins, as if each antibody were a key designed to bind to a specific lock - to the protein of the pathogen - is a flawed assumption and any biochemist specialising in proteins knows this.

In a fresh blood sample, no specific binding can be demonstrated. This only works in test tubes and under very specific conditions. There you can get a reaction with a few proteins and a binding globulin, a staining reaction. This is how ELISA and Western blot tests work. And it was because of these tests that millions of people contemplated suicide when they tested positive for HIV or suffered a chemical holocaust when they took AIDS drugs.

In short, medicine claims that there are specific antibodies that fight supposed viruses and this is not what happens in the body. It is one more self-deception to add to the list that researchers have provoked with their laboratory work and sustain the erroneous theories that we have been assuming for 2,500 years. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy already wrote in 1956 - in the first volume of his book Sociology - that cancer was being researched in the light of the erroneous theories of Louis Pasteur, as if it were rabies.

An important part of the current prevailing understanding of cancer is that the immune system is too weak to cope with it, hence billions of euros have been spent on research into RNA vaccines for cancer which have achieved precisely nothing - because the concept of genetics has now been totally disproved - but was the starting point for the SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccines.
However, neither in the case of cancer nor in the case of non-existent viruses are vaccines going to do any good, because the theoretical foundation of modern medicine is wrong at all levels, especially as far as the immune system is concerned.


-Officially, vaccines are supposed to create antibodies against infectious pathogenic microbes that supposedly enter us. Even if this theory were accepted, how do you explain "antiviral" vaccines if viruses are not microbes? Moreover, they are not biological beings, so how can they make vaccines out of "dead" material if they have never been "alive"?

-The question is answered quickly and simply. Since 1954, virologists have believed that the cell death seen in a test tube after introducing infected tissue is caused by viruses and that tissue breakdown implies that the cells are broken down into viral particles. And this is a misinterpretation that has led Virology and Immunology astray ever since.

To understand this, I must first clarify something.
In 1952 the - at that point - predominant school of Virology had been "given up". Virologists used to believe that viruses were toxic proteins, pathogenic poisons that could multiply by themselves. That same year it was discovered that protein synthesis always requires a nucleic acid and from this was concluded that this represents the genetic or hereditary substance, the "blueprint" for the functioning of life. Until then, it had been believed that proteins multiplied by themselves, but from that time onwards, nucleic acid was given centre stage. This belief is still popular today, even though it was proven incorrect in the year 2000.

The concept of "inactivated or killed vaccines" or "live attenuated vaccines” arose because scientists take the mixture of killed tissue from a test tube and assume that it has been broken down by the action of a virus, and they use it as an ingredient for a vaccine on the assumption that the virus is still present and active even though it is "weakened". This is called a "live attenuated vaccine".
Such scientists, however, overlook the fact that the tissue had actually died from starvation and/or poisoning in the process of test preparation and not due to a virus.
In fact, no control tests are ever carried out to determine whether it may have been the method used that caused this result.
What is certain is that the unfiltered mixture in the test tube usually contains cellular debris from monkey kidneys - their tissue is frequently used in infection tests - and foetal bovine serum - extracted directly and without anaesthesia from the hearts of cow foetuses. This foetal serum is essential to their experiments because it allows cell cultures - of monkey kidney tissue, for example - to decompose more slowly and give them time work with them.

And this mass of decomposed cellular material is the centrepiece of "live attenuated vaccines".
If, on the other hand, they take a particular protein out of the mix, and assume it to be belonging to a virus, they talk about "inactivated or killed vaccines". It is interesting that these scientists define viruses as biochemically dead but then use such confusing definitions.

Well, from 1954 onwards, the model for virologists to follow was that of bacterial phages, which have been isolated and found to always have a nucleic acid with the same structure and length. Virologists hoped to be able to isolate viruses in the same way as phages but this has never been achieved. Bacterial phages and the misnamed ‘giant viruses’ - like the one I first isolated 30 years ago - are mini-spores and have nothing to do with the model viruses that virologists have developed.


-Some of the "vaccines" being " produced" for Covid-19 are drugs, not vaccines. In fact, it is acknowledged that they prevent neither infection, nor the disease, nor transmissibility to others. How can one speak of preventive vaccines? How can "effectiveness" percentages be given? Moreover, what do their manufacturers call "effectiveness"?

-It’s been almost 70 years that the world has believed in molecular genetics and the role of nucleic acid as a storehouse of hereditary information, but it turns out that its role is a different one: the generation of energy in all living organisms.
No experimental therapy based on so-called genetic engineering has been of any use over the last 30 years and most of them were stopped because either patients got worse or even died due to the drugs. Both the private and public sectors have invested billions of euros in biotech companies with disappointing results.

Then one day, in Germany, someone in charge of one of those loss-making companies focused on mRNA-based cancer treatments had the idea of redirecting the company's efforts to make vaccines against the alleged virus from China... before it was even labelled as such. And that person went from bankruptcy to receiving the Federal Cross of Merit awarded by the German government and is now announcing that we will have to be vaccinated every year because of the mutations of the virus and that the use of the masks will be extended for another 10 years.

But a) the vaccine cannot work because the virus does not exist and b) what the PCR test detects has nothing to do with his definition of a virus, which is nothing more than a mental construct.
Moreover, the tests are calibrated in such a way that they always give a certain percentage of positives. They can get 100% positive results if they so wish.

According to the prevailing theory, the messenger RNA injected with the vaccine triggers an immune system response that produces antibodies, and immunity is achieved within 3-6 months.
This is the theory, but the reality is that it is not the mRNA that triggers the body's so-called immune reaction - i.e. the generation of antibodies - but the nanoparticles. The body produces globulin to repair and rebuild tissues, nerves and blood vessels damaged by the nanoparticles and this is misinterpreted as the body's immune response. The tiny globules flatten and intertwine in the affected area and create new tissue to repair the damage; they are proteins that repair and rebuild tissue.

The mRNA itself causes less of an inflammatory reaction compared to the latter. A small part of the mRNA can penetrate our chromosomes with as yet little studied long term consequences, and can enter sperm cells, ovaries or placenta causing infertility, miscarriages or malformations.

In the short term, nanoparticles are more dangerous and are responsible for thrombi. In fact, they are not even declared as active substances, but are defined as "adjuvants", i.e. auxiliary substances that help the real, active substance (mRNA) to penetrate into the nucleus of cells. Nanoparticles are extremely aggressive and cannot be broken down chemically, so the body gets rid of them very slowly - if at all - and they cause inflammation throughout the body if the muscle is unable to absorb the injection and its contents reach nerves or blood vessels directly.

And all this only to have the same champions of vaccination conclude that their vaccine is no longer effective, claiming that new mutant strains are spreading in the population and that is why people are still testing positive and getting sick.

Scientists have been experimenting with mRNA vaccines in animals for years and have achieved nothing positive. On the contrary, they have concealed the adverse effects of nanoparticles on animals and the malformations they cause in foetuses. No vaccine study is done with a true placebo because the adjuvants are always in the injection; they call it a placebo because the supposedly active substance is not in it.

They also carry out human trials, but they are cautious and go to poor countries to test their experimental vaccines. To Cuba, to the favelas of Brazil, to deep Africa... In short, wherever there is no control and there is collusion with corrupt authorities. The poor people they test the vaccines on are paid for it: a part in advance and the rest if after 6 weeks they stay healthy and can themselves go and claim the remaining payment. Those who die or get sick are replaced by other family members in order to get the money.
Why are these experiments not carried out in front of us in developed countries? Why are they carried out where there is no control? They go to the poorest and most marginalised areas where it will never come out, either because they can hide it, or because people do not speak out for fear of reprisals or of losing the money. And on top of that, they are shameless enough to say that they have done "scientific studies" to prove the safety of vaccines, but they won't tell you where. They act brazenly and cruelly. It has to be said loud and clear.


-In Spain they are already saying that vaccines work in a certain percentage for a certain age group. Is there any real scientific method that allows us to know if a vaccine works? Because neither antigen tests nor PCR are useful for that.

-No, not at all. Looking at scientific studies, it is impossible to specify which symptoms constitute the Covid-19 disease allegedly caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The list of symptoms is getting longer and longer.

At the beginning, atypical pneumonia was mentioned as a characteristic symptom, but at this stage any symptom can be associated, at one's convenience, with
Covid-19. The definition is constantly changing, and the claims that health authorities make about the effectiveness of vaccines cannot be concluded from the studies they present.


-What is the difference between "RNA vaccines" - e.g. the BioNTech vaccine - "DNA vaccines" - viral vector vaccines - and traditional vaccines such as, for example, live or attenuated vaccines used for measles or diphtheria?

-There are basically three types of vaccines.

The first is the classical one, which can be the live attenuated vaccine or the killed or inactivated vaccine, which we have talked about before and which we don't hear much about lately because they cost very little to produce and are of little interest.
The genetic vaccines that everyone is talking about are mRNA vaccines - such as Biontech's - and DNA or viral vector vaccines that integrate very quickly into the nucleus of cells, killing or damaging the tissue they are in, causing inflammatory reactions that are then interpreted as an immune reaction to the vaccine.

According to the scientists, the mRNA does not act in the nucleus of the cell but in the cytosol, generating a protein that leaves the cell and presumably triggers the immune response.
In the case of a killed or inactivated vaccine, for example, the supposedly viral protein to which the body will generate antibodies is administered directly.

In Germany, one person proposed to make a more traditional vaccine to combat the supposed virus that would cost only a few cents, presented it to the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute and the institute itself denounced him on the grounds that his studies had not been authorised and that it was a crime!
Big pharma and state research institutes simply don't want competition.
Why is that? For 30 years our states and other private companies have been investing in genetic engineering with zero results. From these projects come genetic vaccines and screening tests. These "professional test-tube shakers" have been paid billions and have barely offered anything in return because the concept behind it does not work. It is wrong and has been disproved but everyone involved in this farce wants to squeeze every last euro out of their investment before the system collapses.


What are the main dangers of so-called "RNA vaccines" and DNA vaccines, and are so- called "inactivated virus" vaccines just as dangerous? What damage can nanoparticles do to the body, and is it true that they can affect fertility and embryonic development?

-The mRNA vaccine contains a large number of dangerous nanoparticles, and no matter how much mRNA or what sequence it has, the result is always destructive.
Extending the above explanation, some of the mRNA may be transformed into DNA, which can damage the nuclei of cells. If these are in the reproductive organs, they can cause infertility or damage to the foetus.
The risk of the long term damage due to mRNA turning into DNA may be lower than with DNA vector vaccines, but the amount of nanoparticles that can themselves cause mechanical damage throughout the body is much higher.

We would like to point out that when editing this text, Stefan Lanka asked us to add a clarifying addition to what he said during our talk, and so we have done so, although it will not appear in the video of the interview.

This is the text: Nanoparticles are used as vehicles for transporting mRNA from the injection site in the muscle to the nuclei of cells throughout the body. These nanoparticles are highly toxic because they have a very high surface area to volume ratio and accelerate chemical reactions. This acceleration of processes is called catalysis, and their toxic effect on the body is persistent because the body breaks them down and eliminates them very slowly - if at all. Nanoparticles cause damage to the circulatory system, nervous system, brain and liver.

The combined effect of mRNA and nanoparticles increases the toxicity that these substances already have separately. The increased combined effects of both substances have a negative effect on those parts of the body where they end up randomly and unpredictably, but this problem is trivialised and both the individual effects of these substances and their combined effects are then interpreted as "side effects" of the vaccine.

The DNA vaccine penetrates directly into the cells, damaging their nucleus, so with a much smaller amount of adjuvants it does much more damage long term and the risk of affecting the germ line is significantly higher as it damages the sperm and egg cells, preventing them from being fertilised, the embryo from developing, extreme deformities or miscarriage.
That is why I find it perverse that members of the German Green Party - which has a majority in the region where I live - boast about eating GM-free organic food and then inject themselves with genetic engineering.

-How can laboratories so brazenly claim that their vaccines are safe and effective if there has not been enough time to know that in any of the cases?

-They do not even claim to be safe.

The "virus" has been given such a dangerous status that vaccines were approved to go on the market as a matter of urgency without the studies required under normal circumstances. After all, this is the "crown" virus, the king of viruses.

And now they're talking about the supposed mutations, whether it's the British strain, whether it's the South African strain...
In Germany they say that the British strain is the predominant one now and that explains why people are still getting sick after being vaccinated.

To say that the vaccine is not only useless but that it is making people sick or killing them is taboo in the media because many of them live off Big Pharma and, as we know, nobody bites the hand that feeds you.

The pharmaceutical industry does not even have to show that vaccines are safe as they have been relieved of that burden by governments: they are exempt from lawsuits for damages.
Governments have granted this and other prerogatives to pharmaceutical companies that have achieved for their contracts to be secret.


-Can it be argued that laboratories are experimenting on hundreds of millions of people who have been tricked into being human guinea pigs?

-Here I must break a lance in favour of the pharmaceutical companies. Seamus O'Mahony advocated the idea that the pharmaceutical industry destroyed medicine, but that is not true.

Ivan Illich already said in his 1976 book Medical Nemesis that if medicine was not separated from economics, the logical consequence would be that the demands of the market would push the industry to exaggerate in order to sell more treatments for more and more diseases, real or imaginary.

The cause is to be found in the nationalisation of medicine and science in general, as Eugen-Rosenstock Huessy put it. A science under state control is a "science of civil servants".
If we ask for the pharmaceutical industry to be condemned because it has violated its duty of supervision, the pharma industry will say in reply: "We only do what the state prescribes, what state institutions prescribe for medical products and the safety of vaccines”.

This is why it is not possible to hold the pharmaceutical industry responsible from a scientific and legal point of view.
And who is the state? The state is us and we do not control our political representatives in parliament, something the German philosopher Immanuel Kant already warned about, saying that if the population does not understand the importance of laws and does not get involved, it will be the minorities who make them.
And that is exactly what is happening. I have already mentioned the deeper cause of the situation we are in: 2500 years of materialism.

Goethe was aware of this problem and in his play Faust, when the peasants invite Faust and his secretary to a feast to thank them for their work, the protagonist refuses to celebrate and says: "There was the medicine. Patients died and no one wondered who had been cured. With our infernal elixirs we wreaked havoc in these valleys and mountains far worse than the plague. I myself gave the poison to many, they withered away, and today I have to see how they praise the shameless criminal".
This is written by Goethe in Faust. Unsurpassed.

If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. It can be predicted that the next flu - after bird flu, swine flu and so on - could be fish flu. It will be enough to claim that a tuna or a salmon has a virus that remains active in cans for human consumption for years. It's an idea for the next flu pandemic...

Either we put an end to this madness or we will be condemned to suffer imaginary pandemics indefinitely. I am however convinced that we can turn the situation around. This is an opportunity to explain to people real Biology - the one Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer discovered - and to abandon once and for all the dualistic "good-evil" view that dominates us. Humanity and the planet need it.

-The authorities have justified the approval of Covid-19 vaccines on the grounds that they are supported by the risk/benefit ratio... Is this a gratuitous claim or does it have any basis, however small, in fact?

-The claim has no justification whatsoever and the studies that supposedly support it are very vague and inaccurate. As soon as you look at them in depth you realise that they lack evidence to conclude anything about the efficacy of vaccines while there is much evidence of harm. What happens is that the authorities force the language and the interpretation of these results and journalists simply reproduce the information.

-In these circumstances, it is clear that we must do something. Can you tell us about the Red Card for Coronavirus initiative that you are promoting in Germany?

-The balloon of the coronavirus is getting bigger and bigger and here I am, sitting on the shore of Lake Constance, with a "needle" in my hand. The needle is the three "red cards" to the coronavirus. The balloon is coming towards me and I don't even have to move. Once Germany introduces a compulsory quarantine or a curfew,
I'll be the first to organise a party. When I get the fine, I will go to court with the seven points with which virology has disproved itself. I am convinced that the balloon will burst.

Virologists have provided us with three "red cards".

The first comes from the measles virus trial. The jury found that the seminal scientific publication in Virology, published in 1954 by John Franklin Enders under the title Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles, which the plaintiff presented to me as evidence of the existence of measles virus, does not prove the existence of measles virus. That publication on cell death in a test tube has been constantly referenced by virologists ever since. Well, there is a legal principle according to which a judicial decision of a high court in one European Union country is considered a binding precedent to be taken into account as soon as it is presented in another European Union country. This is the first "red card", sanctioned in 2017 by a court decision of the High Court of Justice of Stuttgart.

The second "red card" are the seven aforementioned techniques that virologists use in their studies and represent the definitive refutation not only of their results but of Virology as a whole. Just go to the "materials and methods" section of any scientific paper on SARS-CoV-2, HIV, Ebola or measles and calmly and dispassionately identify these seven techniques. Each one alone invalidates the results and exposes their unscientific behaviour.

The third card is easy to check: the lack of control tests. None of the techniques used by virologists are checked against control tests to rule out that it is the method itself that causes the result, as in fact it does. This self-control prescribed by science requires scientists to check their hypotheses and the methods they use. In fact, a publication can only be considered scientific if it includes control experiments.

And what comes out of all this?
Spain surely has a law to protect against infection or a law to deal with pandemics.
In Germany we have the Infektionsschutzgesetz which is the legal basis for all the measures the government has taken: mandatory masks, quarantines and curfews, the imposition of tests and now vaccinations.
Similar laws exist in all EU countries and require those involved to act in a scientific manner.
The scientific nature of their actions is a prerequisite. And this is not fulfilled in any case by virologists, as is demonstrated by the legal precedent of the first "red card", by the self-refutation in the seven techniques they use (second "red card") and by the lack of control tests (third "red card").

And if we all together make this known, if every businessman, restaurant owner, trader, football team, musician or artist affected by government measures spreads these verifiable facts we will put the needle in the balloon and the explosion will be a spark of truth that will light up the darkness. This is the "good news" we bring and we are sure it will happen soon. And when the theory of viruses and infection falls, in the resulting vacuum of understanding the question everyone will ask is: What makes us sick if viruses don't exist?

The question is answered by Dr. Hamer who developed testicular cancer after the traumatic experience of the death of his son Dirk and who eventually discovered his First Biological Law: that most diseases are caused by traumatic experiences. He defined them as "biological conflicts" which, in a context of inhibition of action (we cannot escape from the situation or we cannot solve it at the moment), lead to illnesses. These biological processes can occur at the individual level, affect several members of a family, pupils in a school class, or even at the level of society. It is therefore to be expected, Dr Hamer postulates, that once the coronavirus crisis is over, the millions of people who have been living in a state of constant alarm for months - what he calls the conflict-active phase - will move to resolve the underlying biological conflicts and enter a "repair phase". A repair that will provoke a wave of symptoms. We can predict that separation conflicts, fear for the integrity of oneself and one's loved ones, conflicts arising from financial problems or loss of job will lead to numerous health problems - especially among young people - because of the fear and frustration they have internalised for so long.

-Allow us one last question: what do you think is really behind Covid-19?

-Our history: materialism, scientific misinterpretations, the nationalisation of science that blocks any new approach... Let's not forget that these mistakes led to the AIDS "epidemic" with tens of millions of deaths: half committed suicide and the other half died because of treatments such as AZT.
Also to blame is our conception of health as if it were just another economic sector that is required to grow because it leads to exaggeration by making its sole purpose to increase sales.

When it comes to politics, we vote for parties and not for individual MPs who are directly accountable to their constituents. So let us not be surprised if they then play games with us and put their hand in our pockets. It would be stupid for the owner of a company, instead of managing it, to let it go bankrupt through lack of control and waste. Yet this is the case with our states: they are run out of control. The fact that they do not collapse is a clear indication that more than half of the population is honest, hard- working and responsible despite the political class. It is clear that our politicians are stupid and corrupt to the core... and that mixture is dangerous. The prevailing materialism feeds the lust for power. If my life has no value, if we came from dust and will become dust, if we are just an accident, then that way of looking at life pushes certain people to indulge in it without a care in the world.

The "good-bad" duality is also a product of materialism. What is not understood is labelled as evil. Life and nature seem to be in a constant struggle between good and evil, between life and death as the Bible says. And Dr. Hamer has delivered us from all this. I insist on the importance of his discoveries for our perception of reality, health and illness. Hamer also found the causes of our mental health or behavioural problems, why someone is aggressive, depressive or autistic ("If I don't understand this I don't understand myself and I don't understand others"). That their behaviour is one way or the other has an explanation.

Anyway, the coronavirus is a reboot in the history of mankind and now comes the positive part. The coronavirus is part of the solution to our 2500 years of war, the war of good against evil.
Eugen-Rosenstock Huessy helped me to form a positive view of the future and that we are getting better. I owe my security for the future to him as well as my knowledge of historical processes.
Siegfried Mohr, a good friend of mine, wrote the book Die Quellen des Göttlichen (The Sources of the Divine) in which he expands on Hamer's theory of health. According to him, the phases of illness - the active and the healing phase - have also played their role at the societal level in the historical development of mankind. People collectively have suffered the same traumatic events, the same biological shocks due to wars, famines, natural climatic events such as volcanic eruptions or ice ages...

And when these people collectively resolve the conflicts, they experience the same symptoms - simultaneously - in the healing phase. Siegfried Mohr adds that it is in this healing phase that it is decided whether society falls into irrationality or remains sane.

If we didn't have the Internet, without Internet users interested in knowing the truth, in understanding it and spreading it, this anti-life world view would have killed us all by now.
Thanks to the Internet, we will prevail as a culture. Today we can spread this information around the world in the blink of an eye and get enough people to know the truth.

On the cover of our book Corona: weiter ins Chaos oder Chance für alle (Coronavirus: descent into chaos or chance for all?) we show dominoes falling one after another - symbolising the chain reaction of our history - and a hand, the hand of all of us, stopping the dominoes from falling.

Who is behind that hand? All of us.
The internet is part of the solution.
We also have legal means at our disposal that we must learn to take advantage of rather than spend the day bemoaning the situation.
We are all in the same boat. If we start from our Christian history of salvation - he died for us, he suffered - this eternal looking back with hatred is over. In the Old Testament Lot's wife was told not to look back or she would become a pillar of salt.
So let us move forward and learn to forgive ourselves for our lack of knowledge - that is what has led us to the mistakes of the present - so that we can forgive others.
In Buddhism there is a praiseworthy character, the laughing Buddha, who laughed every night and every morning at his own stupidity. So we have already answered the question of what is behind all this: our culture. And if we are up to the task and learn the lesson, we will avoid a repetition of catastrophes and wars... and we will finally bring humanity to a new level of development at all levels, leaving behind the "good-bad" duality.

-Do you want to add anything else?

-Yesterday I went to a concert - illegal, obviously - and it was my best Easter present. I ask that the musicians spread this news; that is what we are missing. What we cannot express in words - the confidence, the joy, the determination... - can be expressed in music. This is my appeal to artists, to musicians, to painters, to dancers... Take all these themes and transform them, expressthem in ways that language cannot. This is the ultimate force for the future. Thank you for your contribution. Yesterday I enjoyed the concert as never before, with goose bumps, a racing heart and confidence for the future.

This is what I wanted to add: my appeal to the artists, to all artists. We must take to the streets and make this knowledge thematic, make the truth known by all possible means. All of us, together, will be the needle that explodes the balloon of this crisis and everything that is behind it and that we have exposed here.

Jesús García Blanca

Translation: Alejandro Zamorano    "