Belief is not Science

No votes yet

"Scientific rules and guidelines

The rules and regulations agree that scientific work is based on fundamental principles that are the same in all countries and in all scientific disciplines. Good scientific practice requires (the list is not exhaustive)

A.) to work "lege artis". Investigations must be carried out in accordance with the latest research, which requires knowledge and utilisation of current literature, the application of appropriate methods and the latest findings.

B.) Probity. It is the task of the scientist to consistently control and challenge results, including presenting findings of others that question results and hypotheses. Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental set-up are a central component in order to verify applied methods and exclude interfering factors.

C.) Quality assurance as an important feature of scientific honesty. 

When publishing results, methods, work steps and results must be described precisely, whereby a clear distinction must be made between the reproduction of findings and their interpretation. Findings that reject one's own hypotheses and findings and ideas of other scientists must be reported, and relevant publications by other authors and competitors must be appropriately cited."

Scientific misconduct results from violation of these three and other criteria, as well as :

-misrepresentation through suppression of relevant evidence, sources and texts on undesirable results without disclosure. 

-Joint responsibility for scientific misconduct arises from joint knowledge of 

  • falsification by others,
  •  participation in the misconduct of others, 
  • co-authorship of publications containing falsification, 
  • gross neglect of supervisory duties and others, with legal consequences, especially in the case of offences against life and bodily harm. 

The DFG goes on to explain and warn in "Suggestions for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice"

... under 2.1 Standards of Science:

"Research as an activity is the search for new knowledge. These arise from a combination of systematics and intuition, which is always endangered by error and self-deception." "Honesty towards oneself and towards others is a basic condition for new insights - as a provisionally secured starting point for further questions (46) - to come about at all. 'A natural scientist is educated by his work to doubt everything he does and brings out, ... especially that which is close to his heart' (47)." "Dishonesty - unlike bona fide error, which according to some positions in the philosophy of science is essential for the progress of knowledge, but in any case belongs to the 'fundamental rights' of the scientist (48) - thus not only calls research into question, but destroys it." "'To become scientifically ... obsolete is ... not only the fate of us all, but the purpose of us all. We cannot work without hoping that others will get further than we have.' Max Weber's saying (49) applies to contemporaries no less than to ancestors and descendants. Thus honesty is not only a self-evident basic rule of professional scientific work, ... ; it is the foundation of science as a social system." "



Summary of Popper's Theory
  • Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment.
  • Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method, by replacing induction with the falsification principle.
  • The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
  • For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan.
  • For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory, rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses.



"Scientists must question everything and especially what they love the most, i.e. their own discoveries and ideas.
This basic rule of scientific research helps avoid erroneous developments and reveals the ones that already exist. Also, we must all be allowed to question the status quo, otherwise we would live in a dictatorship. Moreover, science cannot be limited to a selected number of institutions and experts. Science can and must be conducted by anyone who has the necessary knowledge and the appropriate methods.

Science can be considered science only if its claims are verifiable, reproducible and if they allow predictions.
 Science also needs external control, because, as we will see, a part of the medical sciences has lost touch with reality for quite some time. Anyone who has knowledge of biology and the genesis of life, of the development and functions of the tissue, of the body and of the brain, will automatically question the assumptions about viruses."


"Science and scientificness are important instruments that help to identify and solve challenges.

Science has very clear rules:
Whoever makes claims must prove them clearly, comprehensibly and verifiably.
Only statements that are verifiable may be called scientific, everything else falls within the realm of faith. The facts of faith must not be presented as scientifically proven facts in order to derive or justify governmental measures.

"Scientific statements must be refutable, falsifiable in order to be allowed to claim them as scientific facts. The first and written duty of every scientist is to strictly check his own statements, to try to refute them. Only in the case that this refutation is not successful and this failure is clearly documented by control experiments, a statement may be called scientific."

" Summarised:

  • A. Every scientific statement must be verifiable, comprehensible and refutable.
  • B. Only if the refutation of a scientific statement by laws of thought, logic and, if applicable, by control experiments has not succeeded, a statement may be called scientific.
  • C. Every scientist is obliged to check and question his statements himself.

Because virologists have never done this themselves and for understandable reasons are reluctant to do so - who wants to refute themselves, who wants to refute their actions, who wants to refute their own reputation - we do this publicly with seven arguments. 

Every single argument alone is sufficient to refute the existence claims of all "pathogenic viruses" and this is what virologists of this discipline do (except for researchers who deal with the existing "phages" and "giant viruses"). in the following points the word "virus" is used instead of the word combination "pathogenic virus".

1. The fact of Alignment

"Virologists have never isolated a complete genetic strand of a virus and displayed it directly, in its entire length. They always use very short pieces of nucleic acids, whose sequence consists of four molecules to determine them and call them sequences. From a multitude of millions of such specific, very short sequences, virologists mentally assemble a fictitious long genome strand with the help of complex computational and statistical methods. This process is called alignment."

2. The fact of the lack of control experiments for alignment

"These logical and mandatory control experiments have never been performed and documented."

3. Alignment is only done by means of mental constructs

"all templates with which new genetic material strands were generated theoretically/computationally themselves and finally generated theoretically/computationally and do not originate from a virus."

4. Viruses have never been seen in a human/animal/plant or in liquids thereof

To date, however, not a single virus has been photographed in saliva, blood or other places in human/animal/plant or fluids, although electron microscopic imaging is now an easy and routine standard technique.

5.The composition of the structures that are claimed to be viruses has never been biochemically characterized

For transmission electron microscopy, they use cell cultures which they embed in synthetic resin, scrape into thin layers and look through. Particles that they show in such images have never been isolated and their composition has never been biochemically determined.

6. Electron microscopic images, which are output as viruses, are known typical artifacts or cell- specific structures

Researchers other than virologists refer to the same structures that virologists present as viruses as either typical cell components such as villi (amoeba-like protuberances with which cells cling to the surface and move around), exosomes or "virus-like particles".

7. the animal experiments of the virologists refute the virus- existence assertions

It is clear from every single publication in which such animal experiments have been conducted that the way the animals are treated produces exactly the symptoms that are claimed to be caused by the virus. In each of these publications, it is clear that no control experiments have been performed where the animals would have been treated in the same way with sterilized starting material





World's leading virologists admit: We have not isolated a virus !

A milestone in history

After more than 30 years of scientific debate as to whether a virus has ever been isolated, i.e. in purified form, everyone finally agrees, both world-leading virologists and the alternative scene.

Special thanks to the dedication of Dr Stefan Lanka & the Australian Perth group of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Val Turner and John Papadimitriou who have been trying to communicate this very fact for over 30 years but have fallen on deaf ears.

The next milestone we will reach together is the admission that the necessary control experiments were not carried out and that the claim of a viral genome is based on a purely mathematical construction.


deepL translate :

-Sources of the statements 

 World's leading virologists admit: We have not isolated a virus - The sources to the main post


 - Corona_Fakten Hauptpost  

Wenjie Tan 

Prof. Zhang (Eigene Aussage in der Publikation) 


Prof. Wan Beom Wak

Prof. Luc Montagnier - Interview Continuum Seite 33 (Interview Seite 31 - 35)

Prof. Leo L. M. Poon, Malik Peiris

Myung-Guk Han et. al. 

Prof. Robert Gallo 



Ex-Pfizer vice-president Dr Mike Yeadon: "You asked if I was aware of any clear evidence of existence. My answer is no, I don't believe there is any such evidence."

In an email exchange with Christine Massey, ex-Pfizer vice-president Dr Yeadon confirmed that he does not believe there is scientific evidence for the existence of disease-causing viruses.

Complementing this, he said, "I don't care if they exist or if they don't exist".

The logical conclusion: they cannot prove what they have spent decades researching because they only believe in viruses and belief is not science.


-Mail correspondence Christine Massey & Dr Mike Yeadon