The theory on which all biology and medicine is based is not only not correct, but has been refuted.

No votes yet
The theory on which all biology and medicine is based is not only not correct, but has been refuted. 
( ie. the cell theory)
Virologists are fooling themselves and the public

” Medicine and biology took a dramatically wrong turn about 150 years ago. They have been veering off the cliff ever since. This result has caused untold misery and suffering. It's time to rectify this tragedy. 
( Dr Tom Cowan) 

Virologists are fooling themselves and the public
-In 1952, the old virologist abandoned the idea  as saw in control experiments that same is happening to healthy tissue if you let it decay.
-When it was shown with bacteriophages that nucleic acid is needed to produce a protein they said the virus is a piece of genetic material that can self replicated . 
They used bacteriophages as guide on how they look like and fell in a deeper trap.
Virologist believe that viruses exist and look like bacteriophages.( which exist)
Bacteriophages are seen as virus of bacteria but they are not. 
They cannot do harm to a naturally found bacteria.
In 1954 , Enders,  a bacteriologist took over the idea and came up with culture cells- using tissues from animals or human beings, adding apparently infected material blood or saliva and if the tissue died  this could be a sign that the bacteria is transforming into viral matter. They never were able to isolate a complete structure,  not a complete nuclei acid. 
They just believed that if the tissue died in the test tube this became virus so they took single molecules out and construct the model of viruses, but it is just a mental construct, they never isolated a structure . 
They were never able to show that the structure found in the dying tissue  they can find in a human  being or saliva( and now to to wear a mask).
They could never  find a virus , could never photograph it, could never find the nucleic acid. 
June 1954 they thought when cells die in a test tube they are transforming themselves into viruses.
This mass of dying cells they call isolate because they believed they isolated something outside the lab in our test tube. 
They can freeze it and 
-if use the whole smashed cells they called it a live vaccine and 
-if they isolated certain proteins out of it it is a dead vaccine as only have part of the ‘virus ‘ so the ‘virus ‘ is not ‘ alive.’
They never carried out control experiments to exclude  that the technique is producing the effect,
The dying of the cells is equaled with the presence of the virus , that it is multiplying and turning the animal or human matter into viruses.
They are fooling themselves and the public.
An opportunity with corona to end the self destruction of our culture and to transform into a higher level of understanding where the bad and judging of others is discarded . A unique historical chance , if not we are forced to repeat history.
To educate people in the real biology , without that will not make waves as it has become more of a belief than a fact, everything has been based on a belief and no facts.
Virologists  are  fooling themselves and the public. It is not all their intention but because they are  completely antiscientific , they never tried to question themselves and they never followed the first rule in science to perform control experiments ie that the science is the  product  of their technique they are using.
All virologists  who  claim viruses cause disease are antiscientific.
Therefore all the laws applied to corona or any claimed virus  are not justified.
Source: ( take-away)
How dead are virus anyway?
All claims of Virus Existence Refuted
Stefan Lanka: What the virologists have overlooked is that the theory on which all biology and medicine is based, and from which the equally erroneous theories of infection, the immune system, genetics and cancer have inevitably developed, is not only not correct, but has been refuted.
They also overlooked the fact that medical virology disproved itself in 1951. And they overlooked the fact that from 1952 onwards a new idea of virology developed, the gene- strand virus idea, which however is based on a misinterpretation concerning bacteria and cannot be transferred to humans, animals or
1 Snippets of the viruses = virus fragments
2 The theory of cellular pathology from 1858
plants. See my
WissenschafftPlus 1/2020 (cover see page 21).
The Virus Misconception Measles as an example 

Dr Stefan Lanka

The phenomenon of simultaneous or subsequent appearance of symptoms in different persons, which has been until now interpreted as contagion and was believed to be caused by the transmission of pathogens, is now also easy to understand through new discoveries. 
Thus, we now have a new view of life (which in real- ity is an old view) and of the cosmological integration of biological processes.
The “new”, but in reality only re-discovered perspective could only originate outside of the official “science”; one of the reasons for this is that the people involved in scientific institutions do not fulfil their first and most important scientific duty – to permanently doubt and question everything. Otherwise, they would have already discovered that the misinterpretation had been taking place for a long time already and had become a dogma only by means of unscientific activities in the years 1858, 1953 and 1954.
The transition to a new explanation of health, disease and healing will only succeed because all the concerned therapists and scientists can save face with it. From history and within the new perspective on biology and life, we now also have explanations of emotions, ignorance and all kinds of human behaviour. This is the second optimistic message. 
Turning around and forgiving the errors of the past can take place even more effectively, the more one understands what happened and learns for the future.
i am aware that for all the people directly involved, such as doctors, virologists, health care professionals, and above all for the people affected by the system, who suffer under misdiagnoses or who have even lost relatives on account of it, it may be difficult to intellectually accept the explanation of reality that i will offer in this article. in order that the germ theory doesn’t develop a dangerous momentum, as was the case with AiDs, Bse, sArs, Mers, Corona and various other animal flu cases, or even lead to a public order breakdown, I am politely asking all the people who are discovering just now the facts about the “non-existence” of the alleged viruses to discuss the topic in an objective and unemotional manner.
The so-called bacteria-eaters ( bacteriophages)
The source for the idea of a genetic virus in humans, animals and plants, which started to develop from 1953 onwards, were the so-called bacteria-eaters, called (bacterio)phages, which had drawn the attention of scientists since 1915. 
From 1938 on, when commercially available electron microscopes were applied in research, these phages could be photographed, isolated as whole particles and all their components could be biochemically determined and characterised. This is real, and cannot be contested. 
To isolate them, i.e. concentrate the particles and separate them from all other components (=isolation), to photograph them immediately in the isolated state and to biochemically characterise them all in one go – this, however, has never happened with the alleged viruses of humans, animals and plants because these do not exist.
The scientists researching bacteria and phages, who worked with actual existing structures, provided a model as to what human, animal and plant viruses could look like. However, the “phage experts” have overlooked by their misinterpretation of phages as bacteria eaters that the phenomenon of the formation of these particles is caused by the extreme inbreeding of bacteria. 
This effect, i.e. the formation and release of phages (bacteria eaters, aka bacteria viruses), doesn’t happen amongst pure bacteria, freshly extracted from an organism or the environment. When their nutrients are withdrawn slowly or their living conditions become impossible, normal bacteria – that is: bacteria which are not grown in the lab – create the known survival forms, the spores, which can survive for a long time or even “eternally”. From spores, new bacteria appear as soon as the living conditions improve.
However, isolated bacteria, when grown in the lab, lose all characteristics and abilities. Many of them do not perish automatically through this in-breeding, but rather turn suddenly  and completely into small particles, which in the “good versus evil” theory perspective have been misinterpreted as bacteria-eaters. 
In reality, bacteria originate from these exact “phages” and they turn back again into these life forms when the living conditions are no longer available. 
Günther Enderlein (1827–1968) described exactly these processes more than a cen- tury ago: how bacteria appear from invisible structures, their development into more complex forms and back again. That is why Enderlein did not agree with the cell theory, according to which life appears from cells and is organised at cellular level.(8 ) As a young student, I myself isolated such a “phage” structure from a sea algae. and believed at that time to have discovered the first harmless virus, the first stable “virus host system”.(9)
The idea, furthermore, that bacteria exist as single viable organisms, which can exist alone without any other life forms, is incorrect. In isolated form, they automatically die off after some time. 
This never occurred to the scientists, because after a successful “isolation” of a bacterium, a part of it is frozen and can be worked with in the lab decades later. The idea of bacteria being living independent structures which can survive by themselves is a laboratory artefact, a misinterpretation.
Thus, the claim that is made on the basis of that myth, that bacteria are immortal, is therefore untrue. 
Bacteria are immortal only in symbiosis with a huge number of other bacteria, fungi and probably many more unknown life forms which are difficult to characterise, such as for example the amoeba. Amoebae, bacteria and fungi form spores as soon as their living environment disappears and re-emerge once the living conditions return.
If one compares that with humans, we have the same perspective: without a living environment, from and with which we live, nothing can exist.
However, these discoveries go much deeper. not only the entire species concept is dissolving, but also the idea and the claim about the alleged existence of dead matter. observations and conclusions about a living “active matter” (as physicists call it) are dismissed as unscientific vitalism. 
There is considerable evidence, however, that all those elements which the “dominant opinion” in “science” does not consider as being alive, actually originate and develop from the membrane of water, i.e. the “Ursubstanz”( 10) or primordial source of life. These elements then create the nucleic acids, and around the nucleic acids they create the biological life in the form of amoebae, bacteria, tardigrades and ever-more complex life forms. 
We have two distinct confirmations on this perspective. One of them can be observed by every person for himself as well as for other people, i.e. that biological life in the form of our body is actually a materialisation of the elements of an existing conscience. 
We can name them and we know the exact way in which our organs and psyche interact and influence each other through information. 
It is known, for instance, that a single word can either do damage or solve a conflict. We can verify all these aspects because they are predictable. 
Thus, the three criteria of scientific research are fulfilled.(11 )
This is important, because these findings and the knowledge on how they relate to each other free us from fear as well as from the fear-inducing “good versus evil” mentality and what is even more important: the sick-making behavioural patterns derived from it. 
These revealing scientific discoveries clarify as well the processes of disease, healing, the “healing crisis”, the suspended healing and the phenomenon of subsequent diseases (aka the old concept of “contagion”). Virus, it’s time to go.(12)
The nightmare of materialistic science, then, seems to come true: even apparently dead matter is alive, it is vital. 
The vitalism, according to which there is a life force in all things, was contested by the Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurius and the followers of their doctrine. Their main argument was that they wanted to castigate any abuse of faith and prevent its repetition. 
Their intention was apparently good. However, they ignored that by denying the concepts of conscience and spirit and all the levels of manifestation of these forces, they turned involuntarily into destroyers of life and enemies of the people.
These “good versus evil” interpretations are constantly increasing due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences, which were discovered and described by Silvio Gesell(13)  (in general) and Ivan Illich( 14)  (in medicine), are constantly increasing ( 15) due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences. 
The consequences of our money system’s inherent compulsion to even more growth, to permanent growth even, which generates cyclical catastrophes and brings about ever more powerful winners and simultaneously a constantly increasing impoverishment  and suffering, is interpreted by all the people involved as proof for an independent principle of evil, because these people don’t know the mathematically determined, tenacious inherent mechanisms of the money system. 
It appears that the people on the winning side, who are ethically correct, regard the mathematically obligatory generated profit as evidence of their godliness and exceptionality.
This was not just the basis for Manichaeism (Mani was the Babylonian founder of this religion, whose followers are called Manichaens), but has always been the driving force of the dangerous aspects and effects of industrialisation, as Max Weber and others discovered.
List of sources
The nobel Prize is for many reasons the most embarrassing thing that can happen to a scientist and to society:
1. All recognition is based on the respective “dominant opinion” of the academic orthodoxy and its claim to exclu- siveness.
2. All such recognitions have proved to be wrong after a short period ranging from several years to several decades. Thus, the nobel Prize impedes the advancement of scientif- ic knowledge by turning mere assertions into dogmas.
3. A small number of extremely elitist people having left the realm of reality, are ultimately in charge of deciding what is science and what is not science. These people predefine “sci- entific” fashions and methods and suppress any knowledge that contradicts their views. The practice of “Peer-Review”, that is, the evaluation of scientific papers prior to their pub- lication, prevents that any undesired piece of knowledge re- futing their ideas and dogmas ends up being published. For further information read the report about the nobel Prize in the magazine WissenschafftPlus nr. 1/2017. The report includes the picture of a sculpture showing the essence of this issue and speaking louder than any words.
2 The members of the Libertas&Sanitas association, in their effort to stop mandatory vaccination, have published com- prehensive documentation about the knowledge available to the decision-makers in the health authorities. In that way it has been proved that there is no data available in Germa- ny that leads to the conclusion that vaccines are safe and that vaccination only entails a small risk. Furthermore: In Germany there is no collection of data that helps verify if, following the WHo definitons, there was a propagation or epidemic of measles or a stop to that propagation through vaccines for that matter. See: I also recommend the remarkable video “Verstand&Logik im Gespräch mit Priorix (Masern-Mumps-Röteln-Lebendimpf- stoff) [2020]” (English: “ Mind&Logic in conversation with Priorix (measles – mumps – rubella – attenuated vaccine) [2020]”).
3 Those fluent in English will realize by reading the follow- ing publication that the construction of a complete viral genome is just something purely theoretical: Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany“, to be found here: https:// The Robert Koch Institute was involved in this research. Prof. Mankertz, co-author of the publication and head of the national Ref- erence Institute for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, claimed upon request that control experiments were carried out for this study in order to rule out that typical cell components were misinterpreted as viral particles. She refused however to release the documentation concerning these control experiments. During the appeal Prof. Mankertz replied that she did not have the control experiments available, but she was sure that her colleagues in Munich should have carried out and documented such experiments. I personally wrote to all authors and to their laboratory managers asking for the control experiments, which are an obligation since 1998.
no one answered. The rectors of the contacted research in- stitutes did not answer my questions either and so the ap- peal procedure came to nothing.( Measles Trial)
13 As an introduction to the findings and solution proposals of Silvio Gesell to escape from the autonomous mechanisms of the monetary system, you can read the book „Wer hat Angst vor Silvio Gesell “ (English: Who fears Silvio Ge- sell) written by Hermann Benjes (292 pages).
14 Ivan Illich. Die nemesis der Medizin: Die Kritik der Medikalisierung des Lebens. (English: Ivan Illich. The nemesis of medicine: criticism on the medicalization of life) 319 pages, 1976 and 1995.
15 In his book „Can Medicine be cured? The corruption of a profession “, the author Seamus o‘Mahony, a famous Irish gastroenterologist, distorts the writings of Ivan Illich. Illich states that his diagnosis on the perversion of medicine has as its “only” cause the internal dynamics resulting from the profit-making compulsion, being the pharmaceutical industry one more player in that system. o‘Mahony on the other hand blames the pharmaceutical industry for the corruption of the medical professions and concludes that med- icine cannot be cured. 
According to him, medicine on its own would not be able to get rid of that perversion and only a humanitarian catastrophe or a war would make a reset possible. 
In this way he overlooks the misconception that originated in 1858 due to Virchow: The incorrect and, even at that time, baseless cellular pathology theory that was the direct precursor of the, later developed but equally wrong and dangerous, theories about infection, the immune system, genes and cancer. on page 262 of his book, the author acknowledges that there was another school of medicine that understood health as a result of life being in harmony with itself and with its environment but that this school had no chance. He was referring to the “psychosomatic” of Prof. Claus Bahne Bahnson and his international colleagues. They did not make much progress though, stuck as they were in the false biochemistry of the cell theory. only Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer managed to develop a scientific, com- prehensive and individualized psychosomatic theory.


What price intellectual honesty?” asks a neurobiologist
Harold Hillman
Published in Brian Martin (editor), Confronting the Experts (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 99-130


See Fig 1. The consensus unproven structure of the cell and Dr Hilman's findings

"Figure 1. The structure of the cell, at the left as agreed by most modern cytologists and at the right as believed by me. In the structure on the left, u is adjacent to the double cell membrane, g to the Golgi apparatus, and ser and rer to the endoplasmic reticulum, a network in the cytoplasm. m is a mitochon- drion containing the ‘shelves’ of cristae. np represents holes in the nucleus, the ‘nuclear pores.’ In my publications,

I have shown that the double cell membrane should not always appear to be cut at right angles, and the reticulum or network would prevent intracel- lular movements which are characteristic of living cells. In the structure on the right, the mitochondria appear in the cytoplasm smaller and are oriented randomly. Further details are given in references."

Present situation
I have shown, to my own satisfaction that (i) at least some popular important biochemical research techniques have never been controlled, (ii) most of the new structures in cells apparent by electron microscopy are artifacts, (iii) there are only nerve cells and naked nuclei in a ground substance in the brain and spinal cord, (iv) there are no synapses, (v) the transmitter hypothesis is doubtful. I have published all the evidence for these state- ments, although this has not always been easy.

"If we leave aside my hypothesis that basic medical, biological and pharmacological research has not been successful because it has not addressed the fundamental problems and assumptions inherent in most of the tech- niques, the current situation is dangerous because it suppresses free thought, without which the advance of knowledge can only be slow."

"Message for the future

Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of my views in biology, I believe that it would be generally agreed that there is an international tendency to increases in: size of research units; complexity of research; cost of carrying it out; competition for academic positions; power of those who decide on the allocation of research funds; influence of those who control prestig- ious research journals; and censorship by the establishments of access to the popular media. It would also be agreed that knowledge can only advance when the current consensus is challenged. This is usually a consequence of thought by one or a few individuals, who by definition constitute a minority. Thus it is reasonable to be concerned that current trends will increase conformity and decrease individ- ual or minority challenges, which will slow down the advance of knowledge.67
In addition, the large number of mecha- nisms discouraging the dissemination of challenging and new ideas will discourage intellectual honesty,68 which is the overwhelm- ing force which advances knowledge. Thus, the present situation will discourage academ- ics from free thought. I would like to give a historical warning to all biologists that, unless they address some of the fundamental ques- tions which I have raised69 they are in danger of spending the whole of their research careers, using thermodynamically illegal procedures, studying artifacts, repeating uncontrolled experiments, indulging in intellectual casuistry or becoming cynical — none of which is good for science."




"Viruses" on Electron Microscopic Images - What are these Structures really ⁉️

deepL translate
"At every step that virologists take, they prove by their descriptions of what is done in each case that they have reinterpreted structures of the tissues used for the purpose (non-viral) to be viral structures, but have never isolated a supposedly viral structure. 
The same applies to molecules that are passed off as components of invented viruses: They are demonstrably, which can be clearly inferred from the publications, derived from humans, animals and the bacteria found in them, and are typically human, animal and bacterial. From this multitude of molecules, virologists pick out those that fall into the freely invented virus models. (Modern Devil's Lore)"
The photos purporting to show disease-causing viruses actually depict typical structures of cells or artificial protein-fat-soap globules produced when such mixtures are swirled. What is crucial in these photos is that the structures shown have never been biochemically characterised
In the structures shown, which are supposed to represent viruses, no search has ever been made for the long piece of "gene substance" that is called the heart of a virus, the strand of genetic material or the genome of the virus.
How are these structures formed? 
- Microvilli in cross-section
- The pellet, consisting of proteins and fats, is transformed into soap bubbles (= micelle) by swirling (by absorption and expulsion) together with detergents/solvents, mixed with dyes, dried and output as viruses in the EM.
- EM images of a molecule covered with metal (vapourised).
- RNA that wraps itself around certain proteins when they are present.
In summary:
Virologists pass off typical artefacts of dying tissues/cells and typical structures produced when cellular components such as proteins, lipids and the solvents used swirl as viruses or as viral components. 
Again, control experiments with uninfected but equally treated cells/tissues and complementary controls of direct isolation from saliva, blood, sputum, semen, etc. are missing.
Non-virologists refer to these particles as e.g. phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, liposomes, transport vesicles and in cross-section as villi etc. pp
Read more here
Telegram contact:
Subscribe to channel