June 17, 2021

from GreatReject Website








My thesis is not complex:
all claims about viruses as pathogens are false and are based on easily recognized, understandable, and verifiably false interpretations...
The true causes of the diseases and phenomena attributed to viruses now have a different explanation, and note one that is much clearer than the current pseudo-explanations.


This is because while scientists in laboratories think they are working with viruses, in fact they are only working with certain components of dying tissues or cells acquired under very special circumstances.


Their basic belief is that these tissues and cells die because they are infected with a virus.


In reality, these laboratory tissues and cells die because they are starved and poisoned as a result of the methodology of testing per se.


Virologists mainly believe in the existence of viruses because they administer to the tissues and cells supposedly "infected" blood, saliva, or other presumably "infected" body fluids, and this, it must be emphasized, then on top of the cessation of nutrient solution and after the initiation of poisoning by toxic antibiotics.


The great insight, however, is that the tissue and those cells would also die, and do so completely on their own - even without the addition of the supposedly 'infected' materials.





The situation today


The virologists don't get this!


By the most basic scientific standards, they should have at least conducted control tests to be sure that it was really 'viruses' that led to cell and tissue death.


In order to effectively establish the alleged 'multiplication' of viruses in cells, they should have conducted additional tests in a control group administering sterile substances from core healthy people.


This was to check that, of course, it was not the method itself that produced or falsified the results.


These control experiments have not been carried out in 'science' to date. In the light of the measles-virus process, I did have these control experiments performed, and in an independent lab, with the result that the tissue and the cells indeed die just as well as if they had come into contact with so-called 'infected' material.


This seems to me to be an important finding, but on the other hand it is also trivial, since it is precisely the task of control experiments to rule out the possibility that the method or technique used is not responsible for the result rather than the reality itself.


Control experiments are thus of the highest priority and are even a basic condition for a result to be considered 'scientific'.


As we shall see, the court-appointed expert on the measles virus trial - Dr. Podbielski, see further in this article - found that some basic publications of fundamental importance to virology as a whole (notably John Franklin Enders' June 1954 paper, and six more articles thereafter) contained no control experiments.


From this we can draw the conclusion that since then, and without really realizing it, scientists have been acting extremely unscientifically.


The explanation for this unscientific action, which is incompatible with scientific reasoning, is historical: in June 1954 an unscientific and contradictory hypothesis was published, concluding from the death of tissue in a test tube the presence of a virus.


Six months later, on December 10, 1954, the first author of this hypothesis received the Nobel Prize in medicine. This turned a speculative hypothesis into virtually scientific fact in the eyes of many, and one that is not questioned to this day. 1


Since then, the death of tissues and cells in a test tube is consistently but erroneously viewed as evidence of the existence of viruses.





Viruses as conceptual illusion


So it is really quite simple:

the death of tissues and cells is mistakenly considered to be the isolation of the virus...

Thus, whatever else one may claim:

the fact remains that a virus was never isolated in the true sense of the word - that is: shown as a whole or characterized biochemically.

The electron microscopic photographs of the alleged viruses, for example, in reality show just regular particles of dying tissues and cells, usually at most in model form.


However, since those involved BELIEVE that these dying tissues and cells are viruses, this dying of cells and tissues in the form of all kinds of cellular parts is also called the "multiplication" of viruses.


The parties involved believe this to this day, and, to repeat, especially because the inventor of this method, by winning the Nobel Prize, is still considered an authority.


Questioning that 'authority' is not even considered...


It is important to note, by the way, that this same mixture, which is thus made up of dying tissues and cells from monkeys, fetuses from cattle and toxic antibiotics, is no different in any way from what is called a "living vaccine."


It is used without purging it of everything non-virus (of everything, that is, since viruses do not exist) as a supposedly healing injection, on the assumption that it would consist of 'attenuated' viruses.


However, it consists mainly of foreign proteins, nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), cytotoxic antibiotics, microbes and spores of all kinds.


Thus, a vaccine is nothing more than a mixture of cellular waste and bacteria. In other words, components that a normal body would immediately excrete. This mixture is therefore toxic.


It is what the body secretes as waste. But it is mainly injected into the muscles of children during the vaccination process, in an amount that, if injected into the vein, would lead immediately to certain death.


Only with total ignorance and blind faith in the state authorities who "test" and approve vaccines can this be described as "a little harmless prick.


These verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of the scientists and politicians who claim that vaccines are safe, have little to no side effects, and protect against disease.


None of this is true and provable; on the contrary, if you look at it scientifically, you will find no benefits of vaccines, and can only admit that there is simply no evidence whatsoever for the claim that they protect you. 2

"Alleen bij totale onwetendheid en een blind vertrouwen in de staatsautoriteiten die de vaccins 'testen' en goedkeuren
kan dit worden omschreven als een klein onschuldig prikje
  -  Only in total ignorance and a blind faith in the state authorities who "test" and approve the vaccines can this be described as a small harmless prick "

It should be emphasized, by the way, that an actual, completely described virus does not exist in the entire "scientific" literature.


This is because the process of arriving at such a description is by consensus, with the parties involved traditionally arguing over what does and does not belong to the virus.


This has taken decades with the measles virus, for example.





A global misdirection


In the case of the so-called new Chinese Coronavirus 2019 (now renamed 2019-nCoV), this consensus process strangely took only a few mouse clicks.

However, this is not surprising when you know that constituents are indeed extracted from dead tissues that then end up in a database.


However, it is these components, which can come from many different organisms, that are finally assembled into an artificial virus model.

The process is as follows:

from a database containing the molecular structures of nucleic acid components - again, it should be emphasized that these components already come from dead tissues and cells that have themselves been biochemically manipulated - a number of these components are selected and these components are used to construct a much longer, so-called 'complete' DNA strand of a new virus.

Much can be said about this 'technique', but the basic insight is that these manipulations, called 'alignments', simply do not correspond to any 'complete' or known genetic material of a virus.


Yet this is then referred to in the literature as its 'genome'.


For the sake of convenience they ignore the fact that during the construction of a 'viral DNA strand' - I mean this completely conceptually, by the way, in the facts nothing is 'constructed' - certain sequences that are considered 'unsuitable' are smoothed out and missing sequences (at least: missing from the conceptual model that one maintains) are added.


Thus, in this way, a genetic DNA sequence is actually 'invented' that does not exist and has never even been discovered as a whole.


These 'smoothings' and additions form, with short pieces that do fit the conceptual model, a larger whole that is then called "a viral DNA strand".



in reality this does not even exist...

Only in the minds of the 'scientists'.


An example? If you study the conceptual composition of the DNA strand of the measles 'virus' and compare it to the actually available short fragments of the cells' own molecules, more than half of molecule particles that should make up this virus are missing!


Some of these were even artificially added biochemically while the rest are just... made up. 3


I am not inventing this. This is reality, but because no one even dares to suspect that they are working so amateurishly, no one even thinks to check this out properly, and so the illusion persists.


The Chinese scientists who thus claim that the majority of the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China Corona Virus 2019 has been 'sequenced' 4 are largely derived from the DNA of venomous snakes are, like all of us, victims of a by now global misdirection...


The more 'viral' DNA strands are invented in the way previously described, the more similar a new 'virus' is to everything that has been 'established' before.


That's right. So there is ironically method in error. But just because you come up with a theory within which everything is consistent doesn't mean that theory is true.


All you are doing is fooling yourself: you may be moving yourself comfortably within this theory - you even call it science and claim that it represents reality - but in reality the impression of consistency springs only from the congruence of your thinking with that of your predecessors. 5


At the root, illusion continues to reign, and it springs from an invalid experiment.





The invalidity of virus tests


The models required for the purported detection of 'viruses' do not derive from 'viruses', but from the tissues, cells and fetal serum (blood without solid components) of animals, mainly monkeys and cattle.


Because these animals are biochemically very similar to humans, their components, which are mistakenly interpreted as components of 'viruses', can also be detected in humans using the 'virus' testing method.


Some 'viruses' and their vaccines - edoch: certainly not the measles 'virus', see below - are even descended from aborted human fetuses!


It is also striking that the test methods - such as the PCR test - detect molecules that occur in all humans...


With all testing methods for 'viruses', a certain number of people will always test 'positive', and this is purely dependent on how sensitive the testing method is tuned - the number of cycles one goes through.


But the illusion is greater.


The particularly dangerous allergic reactions that vaccines based on these toxic mixtures sometimes cause are then defined as "autoimmune diseases."


Especially the fetal serum, which by the way is extracted in an extremely cruel way from unanaesthetized (!) fetuses in unanaesthetized (!) mothers, without which the tissues and cells in the laboratory do not grow or do not grow fast enough, is highly body-unique for those who are not pregnant themselves.


It contains every conceivable known and unknown bacteria, their respective spores (see below) and a large number of unknown proteins.


Kidney tissue is also very popular - this comes mainly from the kidneys of monkeys - because from it are obtained components that are simply assumed, without proof, to belong to a certain virus model that, and I must keep repeating it, does not even exist in reality.


In the entire 'scientific' literature, no "virus" has ever been identified as such.


Since vaccines are also obtained exclusively from these substances, it is understandable why vaccinated people in particular test "positive" for all "viruses": they come from the same mixture.


The testing methods thus detect the components of the putative 'viruses', the animal proteins and nucleic acids, which are often identical or very similar to human proteins and nucleic acids.


The virus testing methods therefore do not detect anything specific, certainly nothing 'viral', and therefore have no telling power.


What they do accomplish, when diagnosed with Ebola, HIV, influenza & Co. for example, is a crippling, sometimes lethal psychological shock, which after resolving that psychological conflict - "I'm dying" - triggers healing signals that are then also interpreted as symptoms of disease, which are then treated with 'anti-viral' drugs that are sometimes so toxic that the treatment ends with death.


Irony trumps all...


Finally, I would like to note that all so-called virus testing procedures never qualitatively say 'yes' or 'no', but are designed in such a way that they are judged to be 'positive' only after a certain quantitative concentration threshold.


So in this way you can test some, many, none, or all humans and animals positive, depending on how you have set up the test method.


The extent of this deception becomes clear when you realize that on the other hand normal 'symptoms' (i.e. healing signals) are suddenly interpreted as,

AIDS, BSE, flu, SARS or measles symptoms from the moment one tests 'positive'...




The death and resurrection of virus theory


Until 1952, virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme that was somehow propagated by the body and spread in a human or animal body.


Medicine and real science abandoned this idea in 1951 because the alleged viruses could not be found under the electron microscope and control experiments were never performed.


It was gradually recognized that the death of cells in healthy animals, organs, and tissues produced waste products that had previously been labeled "viruses."


In other words, virology had disproved itself and disbanded as a science. 6


However, when the wife of the later Nobel laureate Crick drew a double helix in 1953 and it was published in the famous scientific journal Nature, as a supposedly scientifically developed model of presumed genetic material, an entirely new and far-reaching hype was born:

so-called molecular genetics...

From now on, the cause of diseases was sought in the genes.


The idea of viruses - in fact already refuted - thus changed overnight. People apparently could not let go of the materialistic idea of an external agent of disease.


A virus was now no longer a toxin, but was henceforth explained as a dangerous genetic structure, understood as a hereditary substance, a dangerous viral genome.


It was mostly young and inexperienced chemists who founded the new version of virology - gene virology. However, these chemists had no clue about biology and medicine, but in the meantime had obtained unlimited funding for their research.


And they most likely did not know that the old virology had disbanded itself a year earlier.


We are thus witnessing a tragic development, which caused an already refuted and especially dangerous paradigm to be revived.


For over 2,000 years it has been taught,

"Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do"...

However, since 1995 - since I openly posed the question of evidence for the existence of viruses - a clear addition has been added:

"For they cannot admit that what they have been taught is wrong, more so: that it is dangerous to life-threatening"...

Because until now no one had the overview and courage to speak the truth, we see more and more "evil spirits" - free from Goethe - and auxiliary hypotheses such as there are the concepts of the "immune system" or "epigenetics.


All this in order to be able to maintain the theories invented at the time, unworldly and already refuted.


The history of virology is one sad sequence of wishful thinking and thus blatant unscientificity.

First the theory of the virus (Latin for: disease poison) was elevated to dogma in 1858. This was followed by the idea of pathogenic bacteria, especially promoted by Pasteur.


Then came the theory of bacterial toxins (essentially just the excrements of these creatures) and then also viruses, until this idea was explicitly abandoned in 1952.

But with the revival of 1953, they put the idea of Virchow's disease poisons in a new guise, this time of so-called "genetic viruses," and from there even promoted the idea of cancer genes and the "war on cancer," which was founded in the Nixon era.


The latest offspring of this shameful lineage is the idea that genes, because they carried all traits, must therefore also carry all diseases.


In the year 2000, however, with the unveiling of the contradictory data of the so-called Human Genome Project (the shameful and grotesque claim that the entire human heritage was almost uncovered), it became clear that this was not possible, and that more than half of that genome had to be invented by the researchers themselves to give it some face.


All ideas about genes as "carriers" of all info - and thus also info about disease - were thus totally and comprehensively refuted.


Until now, however, the common man is unaware of this. The academics involved find it very hard to admit the dubious role they themselves played in the process, given the impact of the seriously misleading developments that followed. 7


But facts are facts:

the entire human genome is not sequenced, no matter what anyone might claim...






My Discussion with Stefan Lanka about Virology






  1. The Nobel Prize is the most embarrassing thing that can happen to a scientist and a society for several reasons:


    1. All knowledge is based on the "prevailing opinion" of the university educational establishment of the day, including their claim to exclusivity.


    2. Nobel prizes impede the progress of scientific knowledge because their conclusions tend to dogmatize. Almost all conclusions have been shown to be wrong after a short time or after several years or decades.


    3. A very small, extremely elitist group, estranged from reality, determines what is science and what is not. These people prescribe "scientific" methods and meanwhile suppress contradictory knowledge, excluding from publication through "peer review", i.e. the prior checking of scientific publications according to their criteria, and undesirable findings that refute their own ideas and dogmas.


    See the report on the Nobel Prize in the journal WissenschafftPlus No. 1/2017, including a picture that gets to the heart of the issue and says more than a thousand words.



  2. The association Libertas & Sanitas, in its efforts to prevent the vaccination requirement, has published extensive documentation, which is a good reflection of the existing knowledge of those in charge of the health authorities.


    This contains evidence that in Germany there is no data from which one could conclude that vaccinations offer protection and pose little risk.


    Indeed, there is no data collected in Germany that could support the WHO definition of spread of measles or stop its spread.


    See: www.libertas-sanitas.de.



  3. Anyone fluent in English can immediately see that the "virus genome" ("complete genome") in this publication was only conceptually constructed, with RKI playing a key role:

    Prof. Mankertz, co-author of this publication and head of the National Reference Institute for Measles, Mumps and Rubella at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), has claimed that control tests have been performed that would rule out cellular components being mistaken for a virus. However, he refused to publish the documentation of these control attempts.


    Prof. Mankertz replied in the complaint procedure that she had not done any control tests and that her colleagues in Munich had certainly performed and documented these control attempts.


    I then wrote to all those authors and their laboratory managers and asked about the control experiments that have been mandatory since 1998. None of the contacts replied.


    The rectors of the contacted institutes did not respond either, so the complaint procedure was time-barred.



  4. Publication from 22.1.2020:


  5. See explanation in the journal WissenschafftPlus No. 2/2019 on pages 33-36 in the article "A new perspective on life - part II."


    Forms of scientific and funded science automatically go wrong.


    This was demonstrated by jurist-historian and sociologist Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy in 1956, especially the designation of infectious drugs and cancer drugs, which had been refuted by then.



  6. Karlheinz Lüdtke: Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung. Wie sich mit technischen Fortschritten bei der Untersuchung 'filtrierbarer' infektiöser Agenzien das Verständnis der Virusnatur entwickelt hatte.


    Reprint No. 125 (1999) from the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, 89 pages.



  7. To refute all previous ideas about a so-called hereditary substance as a construction and functional plan of life, my articles in the journal WissenschafftPlus are extremely appropriate.


    The contents summaries of all editions published so far are available on the Internet. Also and particularly recommended is the contribution in 'DIE ZEIT' of June 12, 2008 Erbgut in Dissolution, which is freely available on the Internet.


    It summarizes that the "genetic material" is constantly changing, therefore it cannot be a fixed material and its normal and common changes are misinterpreted as "disease" genes.