Some reading topics

I’ve been doing a lot of reading, and blog posts that say “I read this, you should too,” carrying with them long passages from the original are kind of boring. So I am just going to pass quickly on this stuff, and hope readers pick up on it and do their own journey.

Artikel Wissenschfftplus, LK Verlags UG, The Misconception called VIRUS, by Dr. Stefan Lanka: Of course, I read it in the original German, but it is available in English too.

That’s a joke. My older brother studied German for four years in college, I never understood why, but people who speak more than one language are by definition smarter than me, and he never explained it to me. (This reminds me of a Pat Buchanan speech at a Republican Convention years ago, when party politics still had meaning for me. A pundit, long since passed, said after his speech, “I liked it better in its original German.”)

I routinely place 3M flags on passages in article I think important, and this one has perhaps twenty, so I’ll pass on to you just two:

“The “new”, rather 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 fulfill their first and most important scientific duty – to permanently doubt  and double-check every theory. Otherwise, they would have already discovered that the misinterpretation had been taking place for a long time already and had become dogma only by extremity nonscientific activities in the years 1858, 1953 and 1954.”

I will leave it to the reader to find out what happened in those years. He is writing about symptoms appearing in different people at the same time, which is interpreted by doctors to be contagion. His larger point is that mistakes and misinterpretations are in large part calcified in what passes for science these days. What ever happened to the basic scientific pursuit of truth, which requires not proof, but attempts to disprove theories?

“With respect to all “viruses” of humans, animals or plants, no virus was ever isolated, photographed in an isolated form and its components were never biochemically characterised all at once, from the “isolate.”

Nuff said. (h/t Oregon Matt for bringing this article to us.)

Dismantlement the Virus Theory, again by Dr. Stefan Lanka. This article has but one flag on it, as I decided at the outset that Lanka made his point in other writings (this is from 2015). It was written in the midst of the lawsuit in which he challenged anyone to prove the existence of the measles virus. No one could, but one man brought to court six article claiming to have done so. In this article Lanka takes them all down. The lawsuit would be settled in his favor in 2017. I’ll leave but one quote, the money shot, in my view:

“The fifth publication is a review describing the consensus process as to which nucleic acid molecules from the dead cells would represent the so-called genome of the measles virus. The result is that dozens of researchers teams work with short pieces of cell-specific molecules, after which following a given model – they put all the pieces together on paper. However, this jigsaw puzzle made of so many pieces was never scientifically proven to exist as a whole and was never isolated from a virus, for a measles virus has never been seen, neither in humans nor in a test tube.”

SARS-Cov-2 anyone? This process of assembling various strings from chicken noodle soup is still in practice today, and yields nothing useful. The field of virology is pseudoscience at best, more like quackery, in my view.

Again, h/t Oregon Matt.

An Open Letter from Medical Doctors and Health Professionals to All Belgian Authorities and all Belgian Media

This paper has futility written all over it, as in “tell someone who cares.”It is quite long and accurate in its descriptions of the illegality of lock downs and quarantines, and the nonscientific basis for masking and distancing. We know that. The people in charge of the hoax know that. But still, it is nice to see people getting uppity, at last. However,the following passage set me back on my heels:

Meanwhile, there is an affordable, safe, and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalization. Hardly anyone has to die now.

I know nothing about HCQ other than it is touted as a cure for a virus not proven to exist, but might be useful against symptoms caused by some other source, such as oxygen deprivation. But AZT? Et tu, Brute?  Readers are reminded that AZT is the drug, a failed chemotherapy, used to kill people suffering from AIDS. [Note first comment below correcting my misimpression on this matter.]

h/t Alexia on this one.

From the Bernician, a guy in Great Britain is suing every member of parliament over the lock downs and other atrocities. I am glad to see people rising up, but there is only one advantage to a lawsuit like this: People in power have to pretend to give a shit about the law. They don’t, but their having to pretend does force them on occasion to take note of their activities and try to defend them. This lawsuit presents them with such a distraction. It will go nowhere.

This is from the book ICD-999 by Patrick Jordan. I’m working my way slowly, maybe ten pages in the morning each day, as Jordan’s writing style leaves me a bit cold. I’m also somewhat put off by his belief in the virus as a cause of disease, only distinguishing between those manufactured in laboratories as more dangerous than those occurring in nature. But I’ve a long way to go. The passage below is just an off-the-wall thing I ran across this morning.

“On the way there [vaccines] pass by the axillary (armpit) cluster. The Ad Man sells you the idea that it is better not to sweat or stink as opposed to having cancer so America has willingly self-poisoned themselves with Aluminum containing antiperspirants. Aluminum is a highly reactive metal that is used in organic chemistry to move reactions in the desired direction.”

We Baby Boomers can  say that we were in our twenties in the seventies, and in our seventies in the twenties. I was in my twenties when I read a book about advertising (I’ve long since forgotten the title), in which the author suggested that the practice was subliminal. He showed us pictures of ads easily seen to have cleverly concealed images suggesting sexuality or death, a way to motivate us to change our behaviors. I went looking after that for more examples, and was never able to find any on my own. But I do know that advertising is sublime, and the surface message and the real message are never the same. I avoid it in all forms because I know it works.

In that book, the author suggested that the use of antiperspirants was a stupid practice based on a contrived fears of a social discomfort, that we smell bad. We don’t, not to each other anyway. Different cultures have different smells, and sometimes we find those unpleasant, and sexual attraction is in large part based on pheromones, and some people simply don’t smell good to others. As my dad wisely observed about women in general, “They are complicated,” and so too are body odors.

Because I resented that Ad Men were pulling a fast one on me, using fear to get me to buy a useless product, I quit using deodorants and antiperspirants in the seventies, while in my twenties. For fifty years I’ve not spent one dollar on the products, and while people are too polite to say “you stink,” I don’t think anyone ever found me offensive (from a smell perspective) unless I was returning from the mountains. Then all bets were off. But to lay antiperspirant on five days of accumulated stink is an even bigger stink.

I have also said during those years, from time to time, that it doesn’t seem natural to put aluminum in our armpits. I never thought about cancer or anything like that, just thought the practice was the result of the influence of advertising, and stupid.

Have a nice day.

______________________________________

Found it! The book was called Subliminal Seduction, by Wilson Bryan Key. I found an article in Psychology Today that dismisses the book, saying that of course, advertisers do not do anything subliminal in their work. What am I missing here? What are they missing? Of course advertising is a multi-leveled game. We have a family member in the business, and he has said in passing that every ad campaign is built around a message, and the ads themselves are just vehicles for that message. They use sex, fear, death – all triggers that work on us emotionally. Usually they try to make the ads entertaining, often using humor. But don’t be misled, as behavioral psychology is the beating heart of advertising.

20 thoughts on “Some reading topics

  1. Quick question: I’m not following this reference to AZT. The letter is using AZT to mean azithromycin, I believe, which is basically just the Z-Pak family of antibiotics. Isn’t the antiretroviral azidothymidine the AZT used to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS? I’m happy to be corrected.

    Like

      1. Next question: Now I’m beginning to wonder whether this minor confusion by the two of us (who are both old enough to recall the original AZT and to have apprehended since the criminal perfidy afoot regarding its even having been used) isn’t an indication that a disinfo campaign is underway. Sure, it may be a corporate rebranding exercise of a notorious product, but maybe there’s more to it.

        Clearly a rehabilitation/redefinition of the three-letter acronym is well underway, the letter itself indicates that. Meanwhile, a quick search suggests that azidothymidine (the original, lethal AZT) is now being conflated with zidovudine, a different drug that’s apparently in the same family but still used. (I’m not a doctor and received a C in high school chemistry, never to visit the subject again. More knowledgeable eyes on that statement are welcome.) Couldn’t this be a memory-holing of the original AZT and its mass-murderous effects, along with Fauci’s, NIH’s, FDA’s, CDC’s and Big Pharma’s involvement in its use? Are not those agencies critical to the medical martial law campaign currently underway?

        If the authors of that Belgian letter use AZT to mean Z-pak, et al, without even a clarification/differentiation from the original, isn’t a memory-holing already nearly complete? I wonder whether a more adept researcher might be able to discover just when the letters AZT were retasked in the literature to refer to Z-Pak, et al.

        Just a thought.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “the power of language to color one’s view of reality is profound.’It is for this reason that linguistic engineering always precedes social engineering—even in medicine.” Professor of social work, Dr. William Brennan

          Liked by 1 person

  2. I keep seeing from this blog and other alternative sources that allude to no virus has ever been isolated but when you read about past purported pandemics or outbreaks they talk about isolating whatever it is/was. Not saying they arnt lying. Another thing the measles court thing seems murky from what I’ve been doing as in that it’s not exactly saying what alternative sites propose, that he didn’t actually disprove a measles virus or obtain any money. But I’ll need to read further into it but wanted to throw out what mainstream sources report.

    Like

    1. @Piecebob-

      “when you read about past purported pandemics or outbreaks they talk about isolating whatever it is/was”

      ‘they’ did not isolate anything, even though they claim so. The typical procedure is to use blood or other body fluids to create “serum”. The serum is mixed into a cocktail with multiple antibiotics and processed, then added to cell cultures. If the cell cultures show damage or cell death, then ‘isolation’ has been achieved….except, as you can see, it has not. As the story goes, the virus must be in there, otherwise disease would not appear in animals or humans, and the cell culture would not die after the poisoned serum is added to it.

      This is exactly what I am seeing in a paper titled “The Isolation and Characterization of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus from Clinically Normal Herds of Cattle in Botswana” (1967), that I just finished reading. Like mentioned above, serum from the cattle was processed with antibiotics (penicillin, polymyxin, neomycin, and mycostatin), and added to cell cultures. As mentioned, cell damage/death was claimed to be the effect of the virus, and also claimed to be “isolation” of the virus.

      In the case of this foot-and-mouth ‘virus’ story, one might read the details of the ‘isolation’ and wonder if this is actually proof of cell damage due to poisoning (antibiotics). A follow-up question could be, what antibiotics are routinely given to these cattle? And, what is the effect of those antibiotics? These questions are never answered, because the industry wants a ‘virus’, wants contagion. That is useful to them.

      Regarding measles, the point was not to disprove the existence of measles virus…the point was that there is no documentation proving its existence in the first place.

      Like

      1. Good stuff Matt I wanna understand this stuff for myself and so since we’re dealing with deception it will be no use in me trying to explain to a media watching television brain. The more real knowledge one encounters the more isolated he becomes just another facet of “democracy” where everything is turned on its head.

        Like

    1. Note that the scroll feature on this article does not work on this iPad, such a weak device. I have to get up and travel to my desktop to finish this article. Just from reading the first page, however, and knowing that HIV is a construct used to frighten the population into new behaviors designed to reduce their reproductive behaviors, I can easily see that this article got published because of the Kool Aid factor. If a virus has never been proven to exist or cause disease, then Merritt is drenched in it. HCQ may be working on another level, treating some other symptoms of some other affliction, but virus killer it ain’t.

      [“In ways we do not fully understand” appears on the second page, weasel wording to avoid saying “about which we have no clue.” “Do not fully understand” implies some level of understanding.]

      Like

  3. More people in my city are being reported as a death because of COVID.

    One lady recently passed away and the coroner stated:
    “Though COVID-19 is commonly considered a respiratory ailment, it can cause blood clots and strokes. And she had suffered a stroke. She had no underlying medical conditions, according to her family. Though the virus triggered other health problems for her, COVID-19 caused her death, I do not believe she would have passed away without this infection,” “This virus infection is responsible for the cascade of events that led to her passing away.v The virus is definitively responsible for her death.” said the County Coroner

    There is no way for me to actually verify this lady died because of COVID. I have questioned people in the past and it was uneasy conversations. I could call the Coroner’s office but even if he got on the phone he probably wouldn’t say much.

    I could contact the ladies husband, but how rude of me that would be? I’ll have assume she died of something else or maybe she faked her death. Unless COVID can cause blood clots and strokes???

    In a few other death reports in my city it was included in the statement that the people did have other co-morbidities that contributed to their deaths. They are now using the word co morbidities in the reports which I didn’t see that wording before.

    Are there more COVID deaths of younger people in your areas being reported by your local news?

    Like

    1. Whatever the anecdotal cases in the news, the CDC’s statistics for the entire time period show that the great majority of “covid deaths” are elderly with multiple health issues. Of course dry statistics don’t carry much weight with the public, who base their views on compelling stories about individuals.

      Like

  4. Wanna read some German? Here the court ruling about the measles wager of Lanka.
    It’s not telling about viruses, the court is mocking, he would have set rules hard to comply, because he is not following science. The court ruling is based on Lankas conditions, not about the actual science.
    https://openjur.de/u/892340.html
    Excerpt: Dem Beklagten geht es, ausgehend von der für ihn unumstößlichen Gewissheit der Nichtexistenz des Masernvirus („da wir wissen, dass es das Masern-Virus nicht gibt und bei Kenntnis der Biologie und der Medizin auch nicht geben kann…“), darum, zu zeigen, dass „die Idee, dass Masern durch ein Virus verursacht werde“ sich als Bestandteil einer Werbekampagne darstelle, die durch die Bundesregierung und die WHO zu Gunsten der Pharmaindustrie unterstützt werde. Es werde deshalb „Unwahres“ behauptet, „… damit die Würde der Menschen …“ verletzt „und auf dieser Basis durch die Impfungen der körperlichen Unversehrtheit und dem Recht auf Leben …“ geschadet. Besonders in den Fokus rückt dabei das RKI, namentlich Privatdozentin Dr. M… Er geht davon aus, dass angesichts des Umstandes, dass die Existenz des Masernvirus auch durch die Auslobung nicht nachgewiesen werden kann, sich „das weitere Vorgehen“ so gestalten werde, dass Beschwerden an die Vorgesetzten von Privatdozentin Dr. M… gerichtet werden, da deren Verhalten „- so zu tun als ob es ein Masern-Virus gäbe – nicht hingenommen werden“ darf. Das Preisausschreiben stellt damit einen Teil der vom Beklagten als Gegner der Masernvirusimpfung durchgeführten Kampagne dar. Ihm liegt erkennbar nicht daran, dass seine – ohnehin als unumstößlich dargestellte – Behauptung zur Nichtexistenz des Masernvirus widerlegt wird.

    Like

    1. I took two semesters of German nowhere near enough to comfortably read that, but yeah your English paragraph is what I kinda grasped from the ordeal.

      Like

      1. Google Translate does an OK job with giving the gist.

        The defendant is concerned, based on the irrefutable certainty of the non-existence of the measles virus (“since we know that the measles virus does not exist and, given knowledge of biology and medicine, cannot exist …”), to show that “the idea that measles is caused by a virus” is part of an advertising campaign supported by the federal government and the WHO in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.
        It is therefore alleged “untruths”, “… so that the dignity of the people …” is violated “and on this basis the vaccinations harm the physical integrity and the right to life …”. The focus is particularly on the RKI, namely Privatdozentin Dr. M … He assumes that in view of the fact that the existence of the measles virus cannot be proven even through the claim, “the further procedure” will be designed in such a way that complaints to the superiors of private lecturer Dr. M … be judged because their behavior “- pretending that there is a measles virus – cannot be accepted”. The competition thus represents part of the campaign carried out by the defendant as an opponent of the measles virus vaccination. He is clearly not interested in the fact that his assertion (which was presented in any case as irrefutable) about the non-existence of the measles virus is refuted.

        The last sentence might be rendered more idiomatically as follows:

        He [Lanka] is clearly not interested in the fact that his assertion that the measles virus does not exist (which was presented as irrefutable anyway) is refuted.

        A lower court ruled in favor of David Bardens. An appeals court ruled that since Lanka set the terms for the contest, he alone got to decide if the terms were met in full. The appeals court did not agree with Lanka, as you can see above. They simply said that he could call the contest anyway he wanted, regardless of the facts. He was indeed refuted, they said, but he has no legal obligation to acknowledge that and award the prize.

        An interesting interview with the prize claimant, David Bardens:
        http://positivists.org/blog/archives/3663

        This quotation from Bardens is to me very interesting. He upholds the legitimacy of challenging the dominant paradigm in science.

        We all rely on explanatory models which we generate in order to cope with the world around us. If someone tries to replace these models this is – even if the replacement is radical and groundbreaking – first of all legitimate. If the new explanatory model prevails, it will cause a paradigm shift and earn the recognition of all colleagues. In science, you have to be per se open for new models and critical of your own point of view. Yet, what Lanka does is something entirely different. His criticism of the state of research is consistently destructive and incomprehensible. He promises the complete reversal of all our knowledge, without being ready to provide any proof of his crude hypotheses.

        Like

  5. “The appeals court did not agree with Lanka, as you can see above. They simply said that he could call the contest anyway he wanted, regardless of the facts. He was indeed refuted, they said, but he has no legal obligation to acknowledge that and award the prize.”

    This is the gist of the whole issue. It’s also a textbook example of backpaddling by the “authorities”. They only claim Bardens has proved Lanka wrong, while the challenge set by Lanka was never discussed or scrutinized in objectively scientific manner. His appeal to higher court explains this in detail, but I can’t find link to it anymore. Maybe B.Mueller could help as it was originally published only in German? Anyway, when Lanka appealed to higher court, they did an ingenious move by declaring he’s won by not having to pay out an award or admit being refuted or disproven, clarifying their judgment using twisted legislative wording. Perfectly convenient, no? In this way they’re not obliged to say he has won the case by scientific factors. Even more, they dared to reply and cunningly assert Lanka is some kind of a antivaxx fanatic, who can’t see he was refuted. So they awarded him by rulling he’s not obliged to pay out an award he promised, but Bardens was right? How stupid is that logic? How bold is that lie? The truth to the matter is still an elephant in the room – measles virus was never isolated and purified to the point where it can be 100% confirmed as causative agent in developmet of measles disease. The same applies to any disease claimed to be caused by a virus. So yes, the court gave Lanka a victory, although the court also says Lanka was refuted. They found a way to get out of this terrible mess, while truth is catching up, but only by using words. Till this second, nobody has ever isolated and purified any virus thus scientifically proving virus→disease causation. Period. Any other claim puts the burden of proof on the claimant. Bardens doesn’t have it, the lower and higher German court doesn’t have it, and neither did Pasteur, Montagnier, Wuhan scientists, etc. Period.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points. According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered. Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s