Misinterpretation Virus II – beginning and end of the corona crisis

by Dr. Stefan Lanka

Stefan-Lanka-Beginning-and-end-of-the-corona-crisis-

Original article in German: https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-
fehldeutung-virus-teil-2.pdf

The definition of SARS and Corona or Covid-19 states that atypical
pneumonia is regarded as the clinical picture characterising the disease.
If known pneumonia pathogens can be detected, the pneumonia is
considered typical, if not it is considered an atypical pneumonia.
One of two decisive facts for SARS and the corona crisis is that at least 20-
30% of all pneumonia is atypical. The causes of atypical pneumonia are
clearly known and therefore must NOT be claimed as the cause of an
unknown virus.
This fact is suppressed by infectiologists and virologists and is the basis of
the current fear and panic, because the impression is created among those
affected, the public and politicians, that atypical pneumonia would be
particularly dangerous and often fatal because there are no drugs or
vaccines for the allegedly new disease.
From the time when a test procedure for the alleged new virus was offered,
which is concealed by those involved, also tests healthy people “positively”,
the number of cases is increased automatically. At first, people with typical
pneumonia are also included, then more and more people with other
diseases. This is regarded as practical proof for the spread of the virus.
Automatically more and more other diseases are added to the original
disease “atypical pneumonia” and this “syndrome” is displayed as “the new
virus disease”.
The other decisive fact, not only for SARS and the corona crisis, is that
virologists who claim that viruses cause illness suppress an openly deceptive
situation for understandable reasons. The virus test procedure offered is a
genetic detection method. The gene sequences they use for the detection
test are not isolated from a virus. They isolate typical gene sequences that
are released in increased amounts when tissue and cells die. These
generally short gene sequences, components of the human metabolism, are
the basis for further laboratory work. With the help of computer programs,
virologists are only able to construct long genetic material strands from many

short gene sequences. These are then outputed as real, viral DNA strands.
This is the reason why positive test results are repeatedly obtained even in
healthy individuals.
In order to avoid refuting themselves, these virologists consistently disregard
two rules prescribed by science. One is to consistently verify all claims
themselves. The other is to test all assumptions and methods used by
means of control experiments. If they would carry out the control
experiments, they would find out that ALL of the short gene sequences which
they only mentally link to a virus genome strand, originate from the human
metabolism and not from outside, from a claimed virus.
The momentum of the corona crisis was triggered by a message of a young
ophthalmologist on 30.12.2019 in the internet, which spread immediately and
very quickly. He told friends that in his hospital several people were under
quarantine, seven cases of SARS were confirmed; they should be careful
and protect themselves.
Prof. Christian Drosten of the Charité in Berlin heard about this immediately
started the development of test procedures for SARS viruses before it was
even clear and could be made clear whether the report from China about
SARS was true and proven, and especially before the Chinese virologists
published their results.
The authoritative virologists of the Chinese Disease Control Commission
(CCDC) published their results on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020. They report on
the isolation of many short gene sequences, which, when strung together,
could represent a genetic strand of a new type of virus. The authors
expressly point out – and all other virologists involved to date – that the
absolutely necessary experiments have not yet been carried out, which
would make it possible to claim that this is indeed a genetic strand of a
pathogenic virus. On the contrary, the Chinese virologists even explicitly
point out that the constructed genetic strand bears up to 90% similarity to
genetic strands of harmless and for decades known, main corona viruses in
bats.
On 21.1.2020 (3 days before the first publication of the CCDC!) the WHO
recommended all nations to use the test procedure developed by Prof.
Drosten. By claiming that he had developed a reliable test procedure for the
rapidly spreading virus in China, Prof. Drosten, disregarding the clearly
defined rules of scientific work which are part of his employment contract,
and by violating the laws of thought and logic of virology, has caused the
increase and globalization of the Chinese epidemic panic.

  1. The beginning of the corona crisis
    When the young ophthalmologist Li Wenliang informed seven doctors in
    Wuhan via WhatsApp on 30.12.2019 that several people were quarantined in
    his hospital, seven cases of SARS had been confirmed, that they should be
    careful and protect themselves, he did not intend to cause a panic. If he had,
    he would have posted the announcement on the Internet and warned the
    public. One of the seven recipients of this private WhatsApp message
    published a “screenshot”, i.e. a photo of the message, on the Internet without
    being aware of the possible consequences. Of course, this information
    spread very quickly within China and then also worldwide.
    This communication triggered a wave of fear, panic and inquiries to Chinese
    health authorities and the government because of the panic of a SARS crisis
    in 2003, which the World Health Organization (WHO) classified as a
    “worldwide threat” on March 12, 2003. As a result, the Government in Beijing
    sent a “rapid reaction force” consisting of epidemiologists and virologists
    from the Chinese Disease Control Center (CCDC) to Wuhan on 31
    December 2019 to support the local health authorities and the surrounding
    Hubei Province. The aim was to check and verify the allegations about the
    outbreak of an epidemic. If an outbreak had indeed occurred, the situation
    should be adequately controlled.
    In the first authoritative publication by the authors of the CCDC on the results
    of their research, “A New Coronavirus of Patients with Pneumonia in China,
    2019″ (1), no accumulation of cases of atypical pneumonia (“patients with
    pneumonia of unknown cause”) is reported. They report that the existing
    patients can be grouped into a “cluster”, a group with common
    characteristics. The common feature was the more or less frequent visit to a
    seafood wholesale market in Wuhan. How small the group of patients with
    atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC of
    only four patients took smears and fluids of the lower respiratory tract in
    order to search for known and unknown pathogens.
    In the meantime the panic in Wuhan and the surrounding area increased
    considerably. Even the measures of the police, who asked the
    ophthalmologist Li Wenliang on January 3, 2020, to commit himself in writing
    by signing a declaration of discontinuance, which was proven to be
    punishable by law, not to spread anything more about a possible SARS
    outbreak, could not slow down the dangerously worsening dynamics of panic
    any longer. On 10.1.2020 Wenliang, and shortly afterwards also his parents,
    developed the symptoms of pneumonia. Li Wenliang isolated himself
    because he was convinced that he had been infected with the SARS virus

the day before. This also increased the panic.
The attending doctors carried out a large number of different tests, all of
which were negative. As his state of health deteriorated and more and more
people showed public sympathy for his fate, the tests were continued until a
first SARS test was assessed as “positive” on 30 January 2020. The disaster
of the escalating SARS panic, which mutated into a global corona crisis, took
its course.
Li Wenliang spread this result on the Internet with the following words:
“Today nucleic acid testing came back with a positive result, the dust has
settled, finally diagnosed.”
This announcement increased the already existing panic. Everything got
completely out of control when he published his cease-and-desist declaration
of 3.1.2020, which he had signed, on the Internet. This publication of his
cease-and-desist declaration, which was dangerous for him, was and still is
considered by all panicked people as proof that there is a new SARS
epidemic because a doctor who is himself affected continues to inform and
warn the public despite the threat of penalties. The panic increased further
because Li Wenliang’s health deteriorated despite the intensive use of a
variety of antibiotic substances and the public regularly took part in this. The
situation was on the verge of escalation because the reporting of his death
was more than chaotic and contradictory. This was and still is the central
reason why the Chinese and global public assumed that another SARS
outbreak had occurred in Wuhan, which was recently transformed into a new
epidemic, a pandemic with a new name, Covid-19.

  1. The first of two possible causes of the fear of Li Wenliang
    The fear of the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang is based on the events of 2003
    in China, when western scientists claimed that an accumulation of atypical
    pneumonia had occurred in southern China. Two days after the intellectual
    creation of a genetic strand of the allegedly new virus
    (SARS-CoV-1), in which Prof. Drosten was significantly involved,(2) Prof.
    Drosten offered an alleged test procedure for this alleged virus.(3)
    Approximately 800 people with atypical pneumonia, i.e. pneumonia in which
    no known pathogens are detected, but who tested “positive” with Prof.
    Drosten’s test, therefore died – possibly incorrectly and over-treated – with the
    diagnosis of SARS instead of “atypical pneumonia’’.
    The basis for the fact that the fear of SARS was maintained and increased
    until 2019 is two publications in 20134 and 20175, which triggered

speculation about the possibility of the appearance of new SARS corona
viruses. The authors of both publications stated that in healthy bats provides
evidence for the existence of short gene sequences that can be interpreted
as components of a virus. These short gene sequences would have
similarities with those short gene sequences that were declared to be
components of the alleged SARS corona virus-1 (SARS- CoV-1) in 2003.
SARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which is another
description of the symptoms of atypical pneumonia.
It is said about these mental (converted to reality) genetic strands that it is
possible that they could also develop in reality and form a real virus. Such a
virus, which is claimed to be present in bats and other wild animals but is still
harmless, could jump over to humans by bite, contact or consumption and
become a deadly killer. In humans, this harmless virus could, through
changes (mutations), turn into a new SARS corona virus that could actually
cause a disease. Such an event and the resulting wave of diseases, such as
atypical pneumonia, must be expected at any time.
To date, virologists have not been able to isolate a SARS virus from a
patient, bat, other animal, or in the laboratory, nor have they been able to
identify an intact and complete genetic strand of a SARS virus. The
assumption of the virologists that there are also viral genetic strands in
reality, which are constructed in the same way as the genetic strands
composed of short gene sequences, has not yet been confirmed. Although
the very simple standard techniques for determining the length of genetic
sequences have been available for a long time, it has not been possible to
prove the existence and presence of a complete genetic strand of a SARS
virus in any other way.
The fears massively stirred up by such false claims were the basis for the
fears of the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, as well as other physicians and
infectiologists not only in Wuhan. These allegations are the reason why the
epidemiologists and virologists of the CCDC have been focused on finding
similar gene sequences since December 31, 2019, which were identified as
components of SARS corona viruses in 2003 (see further details below).

  1. The second of the possible causes of fear by Li Wenliang
    The SARS and Corona crises started with the claim in the media that there is
    an accumulation of patients with atypical pneumonia. This allegation was
    never substantiated. It was only claimed that the atypical pneumonia that
    occurred could be explained by the assumption of the appearance of a new
    virus, because some of the people with atypical pneumonia had contact with

animal markets.
To confirm the assumption that an unknown virus could be the cause of
atypical pneumonia, known facts described in medical and scientific literature
were suppressed. There are several and wide spectra of non-infectious
causes of atypical pneumonia. These causes make atypical pneumonia
more fatal than typical pneumonia for several reasons.
Among the causes are the inhalation of toxic fumes, solvents and
substances. Also the penetration of food, drinks or stomach contents, which
enter the lungs in case of swallowing disorders or unconsciousness, can
cause severe pneumonia (aspiration pneumonia). Water alone is sufficient if
it enters the lungs of drowning persons to cause severe atypical pneumonia.
A further cause is the recognized spectrum of immunological malfunctions,
such as allergies and autoimmune reactions. It is also known that radiation
triggers an inflammation of the lungs in cancer, which cannot be
distinguished from typical pneumonia. Congestive pneumonia is particularly
well known in older people. They develop it due to water retention (edema),
prolonged bed rest, heart and/or kidney weakness, which can lead to
inadequate ventilation and blood circulation in the lungs and, as a direct
consequence, to inflammation of the lungs, i.e. atypical pneumonia.
Logically, a combination of otherwise low-threshold causes also causes the
atypical pneumonia. An atypical pneumonia can change very quickly into a
typical one if a secondary colonization of the inflamed lung occurs. This is
the reason why the percentage of atypical pneumonia is probably higher
than the estimated 20-30%.
The studies of the five people documented in the two publications relevant to
the corona crisis,(6) did not investigate the possible presence or history,
signs, mechanisms and effects of these known causes of atypical
pneumonia. Virologists usually do not do this anyway, and the members of
the CCDC were not able to do so even under the given circumstances of
panic. Excluding the mention of atypical pneumonia is a serious medical
malpractice and prevents correct treatment of patients. The affected persons
run the risk of being mistreated with a cocktail of antibiotic substances with
many side-effects, which, especially in the case of overdose, is capable of
causing the death of patients on its own.(7) It must be clear to all that
extreme panic, especially in cases of respiratory problems, can cause death
on its own. Panic can even be fatal in a very short time, not only in cases of
cardiovascular problems.
The answer to the crucial question of whether a new virus has actually been

detected or whether only short pieces of genetic material produced naturally
in the body are being passed off as components of a virus or misinterpreted
as such, is decisive for whether the corona crisis can be brought to a rapid
end. As with H1N1, the causers of the corona crisis say that it can only be
ended by vaccination. But the idea of vaccination has been disproved just
like the idea of viruses.
Helpful for the evaluation and classification of the events surrounding the
triggering and maintenance of the Corona Crisis is the memory of the
meanwhile forgotten swine flu pandemic of 2009, when the majority of the
population was prepared to be vaccinated against the alleged swine flu
viruses. Then there was a delay in the announced delivery of the vaccines.
The vaccines could not be filled in ready-to-use syringes because the novel
active substance enhancers used for the first time damaged the vaccine
mixture and made it unusable. Therefore, the vaccine was filled in ampoules
for 10 persons each, into which the active substance enhancers could only
be added shortly before the act of vaccination. During this time it became
known that the active substance enhancers, called adjuvants, without which
a vaccine could not unfold its effect, are novel and untested. It became
known that these novel drug amplifiers consist of nanoparticles. It is known
that nanoparticles are very reactive due to their tiny size and are therefore
used as catalysts in many chemical reactions. In technical processes, for
example, they cause the surfaces to behave completely differently than can
be achieved by conventional methods. Then it became known that the
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Armed Forces should
receive this vaccine but without the novel nanoparticle active ingredient,
whereas the police and the population should receive the vaccine with the
untested nanoparticles.
As a result, 93% of the population rejected the vaccine produced for them.
Only 7% of Germans have had the vaccine administered. The human
metabolism cannot metabolise and excrete nanoparticles. Because of this
refusal of almost the entire population, the swine flu actually disappeared
from one evening to the next morning, as if by magic, from the media and the
vaccines into a blast furnace.
(A small polemic is allowed: astonishingly, the swine flu virus H1N1 took off
at a gallop, did not affect other people, did not make the people in the
decorated ones ill, and stopped its media presence. Perhaps the swine flu
virus has turned into fish flu viruses, to swim up the rivers in the bodies of
salmon, only to strike again at the fish market in Wuhan with increased
strength).

The epidemiologists, infectiologists and virologists involved have learned
from the failure of the pandemic plan, which did not reach the peak of
vaccination. They analysed the causes and published their findings and
recommendations for the future in issue No. 12, December 2010 of the
Bundesgesundheitsblatt. The meaningful title of this issue: “Pandemics.
Lessons learned” Which means as much as: The lessons we have learned
from the H1N1 swine flu debate.
Some of the articles contained in this issue are available on the Internet,(8)
but the most important ones are not. The key recommendations for
pandemic management are

  • Ensuring that experts do not contradict each other in public discussions.
  • Early involvement of leading and social media.
  • Control of the Internet.
    This is in order to prevent claims and criticism from jeopardizing the
    consensus and acceptance of the measures in politics and society. These
    recommendations have now been successfully implemented! The Internet is
    censored; critics are excluded by insults, among other things. The
    compelling arguments which have made it into the public domain and which
    are based on the assumption of a pandemic are simply not addressed. Only
    one expert, Prof. Drosten, is heard in the media and politics. The only
    “criticism” of him, presented by an HIV virologist, had the function of

strengthening the central claim of existence of a new type of virus, SARS-
CoV-2.

  1. The globalisation of the Chinese SARS virus panic and setting the
    course for the corona crisis by Prof. Drosten
    Prof. Christian Drosten from the Charite in Berlin claims that from 1.1.2020
    he has developed a genetic detection method with which he can reliably
    prove the presence of the new corona virus in humans(9)
    On 21.1.2020, the WHO recommended the test method he had developed to
    the Chinese and all nations as a reliable test procedure for detecting the
    spread of the alleged new corona virus.(10)
    In order a) to be able to understand which assumptions and which actions
    form the basis of Prof. Drosten’s claims and b) to check whether his
    conclusions to have developed a safe test procedure for the new corona
    virus are logically and scientifically proven or not, or even refuted, it is

necessary to explain the terms and techniques used, to present his
argument and to analyse the two decisive publications to which Prof. Drosten
refers.

  • How are a virus and a corona virus detected?
  • How are sequences detected in this context?
  • How do the detection methods of sequences known as PCR, RT-PCR and
    real-time RT-PCR work?
  • When may the detection of the presence of sequences in humans be used
    as proof of the presence of a virus?
  • How is the existence of a virus scientifically proven?
    Terms – In science, a virus is defined by its specific genetic material, which
    is unique to that virus. – The genetic material of a virus is also called the
    viral genetic strand, the viral genetic molecule or its genome. – The viral
    genetic material of a virus contains, in sequence, the various genetic
    sequences for the formation of the various viral proteins known as viral
    genes. – The genetic material of a virus can consist of either the two types of
    genetic molecules, DNA or RNA. – Corona viruses are characterized by the
    fact that they consist of a specific molecule of RNA surrounded by an
    envelope.
  • The genetic material of a certain virus is defined by its precisely determined
    length and the exact determination of the structure of the viral genome
    strand. – The composition of the genetic material of a virus results from the
    exact determination of the number and the specific sequence of the four
    building blocks of which a genetic material consists. The four building blocks
    of a genetic material are called nucleotides.
  • The process of determining the specific sequence of the four building
    blocks of a genetic material is called sequencing. – The result of determining
    the sequence of the building blocks of a genetic material is called a
    sequence or genetic sequence. – Disease-causing viruses are characterized
    by the fact that their sequence is unique and does not occur in healthy
    organisms.
  • In order to be able to detect and determine the presence of the genetic
    material of a virus, this virus must be isolated and be present in its pure form,
    in accordance with the laws of thought and the logic which precedes every

science as a fundamental rule, so that gene sequences which are not cell-
specific are misinterpreted as components of a virus.

  • It is only possible to determine the sequence of a genetic substance if it is
    present in the form of a DNA. – In order to determine the sequence of a
    genetic substance which is present in the form of RNA, it must first be
    biochemically converted into DNA. – The process of converting a genetic
    substance from RNA into DNA is called “reverse transcription” and is
    abbreviated as “RT”.
    The techniques used by Prof. Drosten and first conclusions – The presence
    and length of a genetic material is determined by separating it lengthwise in
    an electric field. Short pieces migrate faster, longer pieces slower. At the
    same time, in order to determine the length of the genetic material to be
    examined, different lengths of genetic material of known length are added.
    This reliable standard technique for the detection and determination of the
    length of genetic material is called “gel electrophoresis”.
  • If the concentration of a certain genetic material is too low to be detected
    by the technique of “gel electrophoresis”, it can be increased at will by the
    technique of unlimited multiplication of DNA, called polymerase chain
    reaction. In this way, undetectable DNA can be made visible by gel
    electrophoresis. This is a prerequisite for making genetic material accessible
    for further investigations, especially for the subsequent decisive
    determination of its length and sequence.
    This method is also known as PCR for short. The inventor of the PCR
    technique, Kary Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for
    Chemistry in 1993 for this technique, pointed out early on that this
    technique, his is very error-prone. In his Nobel Prize speech, which is
    documented on the website of the Nobel Prize Committee, he also
    pointed out that there is no verifiable, actual scientific proof that the
    genetic substance, which is called the genome of HIV, actually causes
    an immune deficiency or one of the various diseases, which are
    inadmissibly summarized under the term “AIDS” and treated with highly
    toxic chemotherapy. He pointed out that there is only a consensus
    among participating scientists that “HIV” would trigger an immune
    deficiency. In order to be able to reproduce a DNA with the PCR
    technique, it is necessary to know the composition, the sequence of the

DNA. A DNA can only be multiplied by PCR if short, artificially
produced gene fragments bind to the beginning and the end of the
DNA, which correspond exactly to the sequence of the beginning and
the end of the DNA to be multiplied. These short pieces of artificially
produced DNA are therefore called primers, the starter molecules of
the PCR. They are on average between 24 and 30 nucleotides (the
building blocks of the genetic substance) long. Thus, PCR cannot be
used to detect unknown sequences or unknown viruses. Only the
determination of the sequence of a virus makes it possible to develop a
PCR test for the detection of a gene sequence originating from a virus.

  • In the early days of PCR, it was only possible to determine the
    amount of amplified DNA by gel electrophoresis after the PCR
    amplification reaction had been stopped. In the meantime, certain dyes
    are added to the enzymes and substances required for the PCR. The
    detection of these dyes during the course of the PCR shows
    approximately which concentrations of artificially propagated DNA have
    been produced and how much DNA was actually present at the start of
    the PCR. Since the amount of artificially produced DNA can be
    determined approximately while the PCR technique is still running, this
    extension of the PCR technique is called “real-time PCR”. A “real-time
    PCR” which is preceded by another step, the conversion of RNA into

DNA by means of “reverse transcription” (RT), is therefore called “real-
time RT- PCR”.

  • Prof. Drosten uses the technique of “real-time RT-PCR” in the test he has
    developed for the detection of the new corona virus. For this purpose, he has
    selected short genetic sequences from a data pool on the Internet on
    1.1.2020 that are attributed to SARS viruses. On the basis of these
    sequences of short gene fragments, which are interpreted as possible
    components of SARS viruses, he designed the PCR primer sequences
    decisive for the PCR, in order to detect the “still” unknown virus in China with
    his “real-time RT-PCR”.
    When on 10.1. and 12.1.2020, preliminary compilations of sequences
    appeared on the Internet which were subsequently modified and published
    on 24.1.2020 and 3.2.2020,(11) this represented the result of the first two
    attempts to identify the still unknown virus. The virologists of the CCDC used

computer programs to combine the sequences of short gene fragments
theoretically into a possible genetic strand together. The virologists of the
CCDC state in both publications that there is no evidence that these
sequence suggestions can actually cause diseases. On 10.1. and 12.1.2020
the Chinese sequence proposals were still pending and had not yet been
subjected to the strict process of scientifically prescribed verification.

The fact that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends the PCR
detection test developed by Prof. Drosten for the detection of the new virus
on 21.1.2020, even before the publication of the publications of the first two
Chinese sequence proposals, proves a first fact: Prof. Drosten used
scientifically unverified data for his rapidly globalized PCR test of the 2019-
nCoV, which was renamed SARS-CoV-2 on February 7, 202012 with the
participation of Prof. Drosten.
The renaming on 7.2.2020 of the name “nCoV” to “SARS-CoV-2”, a mere
virus presumption of a possibly defective or harmless virus, into a dangerous
pathogen, gave the public the impression that an actual SARS virus had
been discovered in China, which causes a dangerous disease, namely
SARS, and killed the new idol of China, Li Wenliang, who dwarfed the party
leadership. With this, Prof. Drosten and his colleagues of the virus
nomenclature group fulfilled the expectations of the population which was
terrified to the core: “finally diagnosed”. This expectation was awakened by
the momentum of the mass panic triggered by Dr. med. Li Wengling and
apparently fulfilled by Prof. Drosten. The decisive factor in evaluating this act
is the fact that at that time all the virologists directly involved testified – and
still testify today – that there is no evidence that this new virus actually
causes disease. Or does it only occur in parallel with diseases, in healing
processes, after healing processes, in some healthy people, in many healthy
people or in all people?
This alone proves that Prof. Drosten has crossed the clearly recognizable
border of scientifically justified action to a recognizable and momentous
fraud. He will also not be able to excuse himself by using a journal for the
publication of his test procedure on January 23, 202013 which does not
check the statements made in it before going to press.

  1. Decisive questions for a quick termination of the Corona crisis
    The central and all-decisive question is whether Prof. Drosten has fulfilled his
    scientific obligation, which is part of his employment contract(14) to himself
    and consistently verified all the assertions made in his publication about the

detection method he developed and the public statements based on it.
Three central questions arise from this central scientific responsibility:
Did Prof. Drosten check whether the gene sequences, which are the basis of
his test procedure and which he received from Chinese virologists, are
actually sequences that originate from a virus?

Did Prof. Drosten carry out the control experiments which are mandatory in
science and which prove whether the sequences he used actually originate
from a virus?
Did he carry out the control experiments to prove whether the sequences he
ascribes to the new virus are in fact sequences which are produced in every
metabolism, perhaps even in plants such as Tanzanian papayas (15) or
which are produced in a metabolically increased form in diseases?
On the basis of which assumptions, experiments and control experiments
can Prof. Drosten claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects
partial areas of 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten) genes of
the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease- causing virus? And
not just fragments of a virus, after an assumed successful fight of the
immune system or the presence of “defective” or “incomplete” or “harmless”
viruses in our genetic material, which are typical and make up 50% of the
gene masses of our chromosomes?
The answers result from the documented actions of Prof. Drosten during the
development of the test procedure and from the documented non-actions of
Prof. Drosten until today. The virologist Prof. Drosten, who developed the
detection method for the new corona virus (first called 2019- nCoV then,
from 7.2.2020 on called SARS-CoV-2), describes the development of the
test method in a publication published on 23.1.2020.(16) On page 3 of this
article, left column, 8 lines from below, he describes the first and decisive
step of his approach: “Before the announcement of public virus sequences
from 2019-nCoV cases, we relied on reports from the social media
announcing the detection of a SARS-like virus. “Therefore, we have
assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak.”
“Before public release of virus sequences from cases of 2019-nCoV, we
relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We
thus assumed that a SARS related CoV is involved in the outbreak.) This
means that Prof. Drosten and his colleagues have assumed, based on

reports in the social media, that a SARS-related corona virus could be
involved in the alleged outbreak of atypical pneumonia. At that time, no
clinical data were available to support such a suspicion. What was his next
step? “We downloaded all complete and partial (average length >400
nucleotides) of SARS-related viral sequences available on the GenBank on
January 1, 2020.”
Continue in the right column of page 3, third row from the top: “We aligned
these sequences [Note from me, SL: against a given standard SARS virus
sequence] and used the aligned sequences to develop our tests (Figure S1
in the supplement to this publication). “After the publication of the first 2019
nCoV sequence on virological.org, we selected three tests based on how
well they matched the 2019 nCoV genome (Figure 1). (“We downloaded all
complete and partial (if >400 nt) SARS-re-lated virus sequences available in
GenBank by 1 January 2020 [… .] These sequences were aligned and the
alignment was used for assay design (Supplementary Figure S1). Upon
release of the first 2019-nCoV sequence at virological.org, three assays
were selected based on how well they matched to the 2019- nCoV genome
(Figure 1).
From his explanations, clear answers, conclusions and consequences can
be drawn:
I. Did Prof. Drosten check whether the gene sequences, which are the basis
of his test procedure and which he received from Chinese virologists, are
actually sequences that originate from a virus? The answer is no! He was not
able to check whether the sequences offered originated from a virus,
because the two decisive publications describing the extraction of the gene
sequences used by him were not available to him before the market launch
of his test.
II. Did Prof. Drosten carry out the control experiments which are mandatory
in science and which prove whether the sequences he used actually
originated from a virus? Did he carry out the control experiments to prove
whether the sequences he ascribes to the new virus are in fact sequences
that occur in every metabolism, perhaps even in plants, or whether they
occur in increased numbers in the metabolism of diseases?
The answer is: No! Neither he, nor the virologists of the CCDC, nor others
have demonstrably carried out these necessary control experiments to date
and if they have, they have not published them. For these decisive control
experiments short gene sequences of the metabolism of healthy persons

have to be used to sequence them. These short gene sequences, like the
gene sequences from sick people, must be assembled with the same
computer programs to form a long genetic strand of a virus. This experiment
was either never carried out or never published. There is not even a mention
of this compulsory control attempt resulting from the laws of thought and the
logic of virology – in order to control one’s own results consequently. The
moment this attempt is carried out and published, the Corona crisis is
immediately over.
The other control test, which is based on scientific logic, is the intensive
testing of clinical samples from people with diseases other than those
attributed to the virus using the developed PCR method (real-time RT-PCR).
These further control experiments, which are logically necessary to establish
a test procedure, are to validate, i.e. to check whether it is valid and has a
conclusive force, have not been carried out to date, nor have they even
claimed to have been carried out. For this reason, the developers and
producers of these test procedures have ensured themselves by means of
corresponding information on the package inserts, e.g. that the test is only to
be used for study purposes and is not suitable for diagnostic purposes.
I can predict with certainty that people who release increased gene
sequences from the tissue type of squamous epithelia, e.g. kidney patients,
will be tested 100% “positive” with the PCR developed by Prof. Drosten at
the latest when their smear quantity is multiplied and concentrated a little. It
is very likely that all organisms can even be tested positive.
I call on biochemists, bioinformaticians, virologists and cell culture specialists
to carry out these control experiments, to publish them and to inform me
about them. I have designed a control experiment which excludes from the
outset the excuse that the sample material used has been contaminated with
the SARS-Cov-2 virus before or during the control experiment.
The costs for the performance of the control experiments are covered if I and
neutral observers are allowed to be present during the performance of the
control experiments and each step is documented. Please contact the
publishing house for contact details. The results will end the corona crisis
immediately. It is of no use if only I present the results of the control
experiments.
III. On the basis of which assumptions, experiments and control experiments
can Prof. Drosten claim that his test procedure, with which he only detects
partial areas of only 2 (two) genes from the genome of a total of 10 (ten)
genes of the corona virus, detects a whole, active and disease- causing virus

and not just fragments of a virus, after a pleasantly successful battle of the
immune system or through the presence of the numerous “defective”,
“incomplete” and “harmless” viruses in our genetic material?
Prof. Drosten did not consider these logical questions at all, because they do
not appear anywhere in his publications and claims. The detection of only
short gene sequences from a long genome strand of a virus can never prove
the presence of an intact and therefore multipliable virus. In order to be
allowed to call such a PCR test valid, studies would first have to be
undertaken whose results show that the detection of short gene sequences
automatically proves the presence of a whole and intact genetic strand of a
virus. Such logically compelling studies have not been carried out or
mentioned to date.
Prof. Karin Mölling, the leading virologist in the field of cell-associated
viruses, which are considered endogenous, harmless, incomplete or
defective, described the measures taken at the beginning of the corona crisis
as unjustified. She has shown in publications and in a book (17) that half of
the genetic material of humans, i.e. half of the sequences of which our
chromosomes consist, consists of inactive and defective gene sequences of
viruses. What it does not know, or hides, is the fact that metabolism
constantly produces a large amount of RNA gene sequences of any
composition, which do not appear in the form of DNA sequences in the
chromosomes. This fact calls into question the claims of existence of all RNA
viruses, such as corona viruses, Ebola virus, HIV, measles virus and SARS
viruses. This fact is also the basis why control experiments are used to put
an immediate end not only to the Corona crisis but also to the fear and
mistreatment by the entire virology of the alleged disease viruses. I can
assure you that the actual causes and phenomena of the infection attributed
to viruses are proven in the “positive” sense of the word “science”. For this I
refer to the previous article “Misinterpretation Virus” in the magazine
WissenschafftPlus No. 1/2020, which can also be purchased as pdf-file. And,
of course, to the many previous contributions around this question. The
continuation “Misinterpretation Virus III” will follow.
Sources
(1) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N
Engl J Med 2020; 382: 727-33. DOI: 10.1056/NEJ- Moa2001017. Published
on 24.1.2020. (2) The responsibility of a virologist. Is Christian Do victims or
perpetrators rust? Published in the blog of the Friedens activists Peter Frey,
peds-ansichten.de on 26.5.2020. SARS, Wikipedia.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwe- res_akutes_Atmwegssyndrom (entry of
29.5.2020); (4) Xing-Yi Ge et al., Isolation and characterization of a bat
SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature. Volume 503,
2013, pp. 535-538, doi:10.1038/nature12711; (5) Discovery of a rich gene
pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin
of SARS coronavirus. Ben Hu, Lei-Ping Zeng, Xing-Lou Yang et al, PLoS
Pathogens. 13(11): e1006698, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698; (6) See
source 1 and: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease
in China. Nature | Vol 579 | 12 March 2020 | 265-269.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2008-3. Published on 3.2.2020; (7)
Pathological endings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress
syndrome. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 420-22. Published Online February
17, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30076-X; (8)
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, issue no. 12, December 2010. Pandemics. Lessons
learned https:// link.springer.com/jour- nal/103/53/12; (9) Detection of 2019
novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Prof. Christian Drosten
and colleagues. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):pii=2000045.
https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917. ES. 2020.25.3.2000045. Published on
23.1.2020. (10) Diagnostics: First test for novel coronavirus developed.
Medica magazine of 21.1.2020. https:// www.medica.de/
ene/News/Archive/Diagnostics; (11) See 6; (12) Severe acute respiratory
syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of
the Coronavirus Study Group. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi. org/
10.1101/2020.02.07.937862; 13 See 9; (14) §2 Principles of Good
Scientific Practice: (1) among others “to consistently doubt all results
oneself” and “to observe the recognized principles of scientific work in the
individual disciplines. In: New version of the Statutes of Charity –
Universitätsmedizin Berlin to ensure Good Scientific Practice of June 20,
2012 (AMB Charité No. 092, p. 658) To be found at: https://www.charite.de/

leadmin/ user_upload/portal/charite/press/publications/amtl-mittei-
lungsblatt/2016/ AMB_208.pdf; (15) For examples of how the public is

dealing with the findings that fruits are also tested “positive” for SARS-Cov-2,

see: https://www.zdf.de/nachrich- ten/panorama/coronavirus-papaya-goat-
tanzania-test-100. html (16) See 9; (17) See the book by Karin Mölling with

the interesting title “Viruses: More Friends Than Foes”, 420 pages, which
was also published in German in 2016

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *