Check with Dr Stephan Lanka, He proved many times that viruses do not exist, does not exist , for myself it is very clear and for the rest, ask me if I care !!!
For those genuinely interested in the facts, Lanka did not prove that viruses do not exist. He merely showed that cells break down over time outside the body or when exposed to high levels of toxins in a cell culture. However, Lanka did not produce viruses, micrographs of viruses, or sequences of nucleic acids associated with viruses.
Thanks for the Sunday laugh! 🤣 Exposes how Kaufman has not done any homework! In all this time! Kirsch on the other hand, has come a long way baby!!! and not even his area of expertise… 😑
Hi Jeff, I'm interested to get your considered opinion on Frank Visser's critique of Stefan Lanka's CPE experiments. He's probably the only writer from the "orthodox" side that has taken the time to examine them, as everyone else "in the mainstream" has simply ignored Lanka.
Visser refutes Lanka's claim that control experiments have never been done before. Mock-infectioned controls are commonly done, according to Visser (but maybe not always), so that in many experiments two specimens are exactly the same (e.g. same chemicals introduced) except for a virus (and as you've discussed many times, Jeff, what's introduced may not be 'pure' virus because we're dealing at such a microscopic scale, but the impurities are so few we can be reasonably sure of what the causative agent is).
Visser says that's it's acknowledged in orthodox virology that mock-infected controls often show cytopathic effects (Lanka claims the opposite), but that introducing the virus shows severe damage, and that's the important difference. The virus certainly appears to break down the cell, as the same thing doesn't happen in the mock-infected sample.
Visser goes further by claiming it's Lanka's experiment that lacks a control, because he needed to also infect the cells with the Covid virus and compare it, but that gets us into a kind of ironic paradox where Lanka doesn't believe that would be possible anyway.
Yes, this is largely accurate. As previously mentioned, cells degrade naturally outside the body or when exposed to high levels of cytotoxic agents. The terms cytopathic effect (CPE) and cytotoxicity are often conflated, though they denote distinct phenomena. CPE stands for "cytopathic effects," referring to 'pathogenic' impacts on cells. In contrast, cytotoxicity describes cell damage due to toxic substances or starvation, etc. Viral infection and replication in cultured cells result in CPE, and I believe these terms should not be used so interchangeably.
Regarding mock infections, they serve as control cultures in experiments. Control cultures may exhibit cell breakdown resembling CPE. However, CPE is distinguishable macroscopically, as cell breakdown in CPE involves dense viral colonies spreading outward from infected cells. This indicates the production of viral proteins using the culture medium, resulting in a higher quantity of material. In contrast, simple cell debris does not proliferate significantly, as no additional material is produced by the cells.
Lanka's observations merely demonstrated cell breakdown and subsequent debris, erroneously attributing this to viral activity without providing evidence of any viral structures. Furthermore, he failed to conduct nucleic acid sequence analysis to confirm the presence of viruses. The general public, often lacking an understanding of these scientific distinctions, may be misled into believing that cell cultures show similar effects without viral addition. However, this is seldom the case.
My understanding of Lanka's claims differ from yours. I thought he was arguing that the orthodox incorrectly attributed CPE to viruses, but his experiments tried to show the observations can be explained entirely by the cytotoxic agents (in other words, the damage to the cell can be explained entirely by the toxins (or other insults) that were part of the experiment). I didn't think he attributed anything to viral activity, he was trying to say there wasn't any.
Jamie Andrews et al. are currently claiming that they have identified particles they believe to be viruses, despite lacking sequence analysis to substantiate their claims, and despite those particles looking nothing like viruses. They contend that Stefan Lanka previously demonstrated similar results.
In contrast, standard virological practice involves comprehensive verification when CPE is observed in a culture. Researchers typically employ nucleic acid analysis and electron microscopy to thoroughly confirm their results. Multiple methodologies are used to ascertain the presence of viruses in the culture. So, such assumptions are not made based solely on cellular breakdown.
If Lanka was merely demonstrating that cell breakdown occurs due to cytotoxic agents, this should be a given. It is a fundamental characteristic of all living cells that, when removed from their natural environment, they will eventually deteriorate and undergo apoptosis.
Yes, they're making that claim. But when I and others asked Jamie for the methods he had the lab use, he refused to give that information. Instead, he called me a liar multiple times and then proceeded to block me on Twitter and Substack.
Jamie is condescending and toxic. It seems like they're dragging out the release of their results to get more donations. On Twitter, he's been insulting molecular biologists, calling them "pieces of shite" just for asking him to share his methods so others can confirm the veracity of his claims.
I posted about the 'evidence' he's claiming in a Substack thread and got blocked soon after. You can't take what they say at face value. There's a backstory to their claims and reasons why they attack others. They're avoiding their responsibility to provide legitimate evidence.
If he does ever release PCR test results, I believe he'll end up looking foolish. That's why I and others have all concluded he either won't release them or won't tell the truth about the results.
I see what you mean by the attitude. If these are the caliber of people challenging the medical establishment, they won't get far. Arrogance is sometimes permissible with genius, but not with anything less. They are not showing they can go toe-to-toe, and they return polite responses from experts with insults.
I was confused what you were saying above that those in no-virus camp were claiming to have found a virus (since they are trying to prove they don't exist at all), but I think what you are saying is that they believe they have produced particles in the lab that orthodox researchers have MISTAKEN for viruses. Correct?
I personally, do not trust Kirsch at all !!!!
Do you trust Kaufman? Why do you not trust Kirsch, if I may ask?
Yes, why discussing something that do not exist .....Period
Because viruses exist?
Check with Dr Stephan Lanka, He proved many times that viruses do not exist, does not exist , for myself it is very clear and for the rest, ask me if I care !!!
For those genuinely interested in the facts, Lanka did not prove that viruses do not exist. He merely showed that cells break down over time outside the body or when exposed to high levels of toxins in a cell culture. However, Lanka did not produce viruses, micrographs of viruses, or sequences of nucleic acids associated with viruses.
Given this, your claims are completely false.
Do you have anything else to add on this matter?
Thanks for the Sunday laugh! 🤣 Exposes how Kaufman has not done any homework! In all this time! Kirsch on the other hand, has come a long way baby!!! and not even his area of expertise… 😑
Hi Jeff, I'm interested to get your considered opinion on Frank Visser's critique of Stefan Lanka's CPE experiments. He's probably the only writer from the "orthodox" side that has taken the time to examine them, as everyone else "in the mainstream" has simply ignored Lanka.
https://www.integralworld.net/visser203.html#3
Visser refutes Lanka's claim that control experiments have never been done before. Mock-infectioned controls are commonly done, according to Visser (but maybe not always), so that in many experiments two specimens are exactly the same (e.g. same chemicals introduced) except for a virus (and as you've discussed many times, Jeff, what's introduced may not be 'pure' virus because we're dealing at such a microscopic scale, but the impurities are so few we can be reasonably sure of what the causative agent is).
Visser says that's it's acknowledged in orthodox virology that mock-infected controls often show cytopathic effects (Lanka claims the opposite), but that introducing the virus shows severe damage, and that's the important difference. The virus certainly appears to break down the cell, as the same thing doesn't happen in the mock-infected sample.
Visser goes further by claiming it's Lanka's experiment that lacks a control, because he needed to also infect the cells with the Covid virus and compare it, but that gets us into a kind of ironic paradox where Lanka doesn't believe that would be possible anyway.
Yes, this is largely accurate. As previously mentioned, cells degrade naturally outside the body or when exposed to high levels of cytotoxic agents. The terms cytopathic effect (CPE) and cytotoxicity are often conflated, though they denote distinct phenomena. CPE stands for "cytopathic effects," referring to 'pathogenic' impacts on cells. In contrast, cytotoxicity describes cell damage due to toxic substances or starvation, etc. Viral infection and replication in cultured cells result in CPE, and I believe these terms should not be used so interchangeably.
Regarding mock infections, they serve as control cultures in experiments. Control cultures may exhibit cell breakdown resembling CPE. However, CPE is distinguishable macroscopically, as cell breakdown in CPE involves dense viral colonies spreading outward from infected cells. This indicates the production of viral proteins using the culture medium, resulting in a higher quantity of material. In contrast, simple cell debris does not proliferate significantly, as no additional material is produced by the cells.
Lanka's observations merely demonstrated cell breakdown and subsequent debris, erroneously attributing this to viral activity without providing evidence of any viral structures. Furthermore, he failed to conduct nucleic acid sequence analysis to confirm the presence of viruses. The general public, often lacking an understanding of these scientific distinctions, may be misled into believing that cell cultures show similar effects without viral addition. However, this is seldom the case.
My understanding of Lanka's claims differ from yours. I thought he was arguing that the orthodox incorrectly attributed CPE to viruses, but his experiments tried to show the observations can be explained entirely by the cytotoxic agents (in other words, the damage to the cell can be explained entirely by the toxins (or other insults) that were part of the experiment). I didn't think he attributed anything to viral activity, he was trying to say there wasn't any.
Jamie Andrews et al. are currently claiming that they have identified particles they believe to be viruses, despite lacking sequence analysis to substantiate their claims, and despite those particles looking nothing like viruses. They contend that Stefan Lanka previously demonstrated similar results.
In contrast, standard virological practice involves comprehensive verification when CPE is observed in a culture. Researchers typically employ nucleic acid analysis and electron microscopy to thoroughly confirm their results. Multiple methodologies are used to ascertain the presence of viruses in the culture. So, such assumptions are not made based solely on cellular breakdown.
If Lanka was merely demonstrating that cell breakdown occurs due to cytotoxic agents, this should be a given. It is a fundamental characteristic of all living cells that, when removed from their natural environment, they will eventually deteriorate and undergo apoptosis.
Interesting, I had't heard of Jamie Andrews before or what he's been doing, so I started searching around for that. According to this web page, they are planning on doing genetic sequencing next: https://thewayfwrd.com/podcasts/ep-99-the-most-important-project-of-the-century-the-end-of-virology-with-jamie-andrews-jacob-diaz/
Yes, they're making that claim. But when I and others asked Jamie for the methods he had the lab use, he refused to give that information. Instead, he called me a liar multiple times and then proceeded to block me on Twitter and Substack.
See thread: https://shorturl.at/Iz92H
Jamie is condescending and toxic. It seems like they're dragging out the release of their results to get more donations. On Twitter, he's been insulting molecular biologists, calling them "pieces of shite" just for asking him to share his methods so others can confirm the veracity of his claims.
I posted about the 'evidence' he's claiming in a Substack thread and got blocked soon after. You can't take what they say at face value. There's a backstory to their claims and reasons why they attack others. They're avoiding their responsibility to provide legitimate evidence.
If he does ever release PCR test results, I believe he'll end up looking foolish. That's why I and others have all concluded he either won't release them or won't tell the truth about the results.
I see what you mean by the attitude. If these are the caliber of people challenging the medical establishment, they won't get far. Arrogance is sometimes permissible with genius, but not with anything less. They are not showing they can go toe-to-toe, and they return polite responses from experts with insults.
I was confused what you were saying above that those in no-virus camp were claiming to have found a virus (since they are trying to prove they don't exist at all), but I think what you are saying is that they believe they have produced particles in the lab that orthodox researchers have MISTAKEN for viruses. Correct?
Where would I see the full debate?
I found it here. https://rumble.com/v516uno-vsrf-live-131-the-great-virus-debate-an-interview-with-dr.-andrew-kaufman-m.html
Yes, just switch off the Light !!!
What?