Virologist Claims Measles Virus Doesn't Exist - Offers 100K Reward For Anyone With Actual Evidence | Full Dub
Dr. Stefan Lanka, German virologist and the world's first man to discover a megavirus in the oceans has put up 100.000 Euro prize bounty for actual, scientific evidence on the existence of the pathogenic virus that supposedly causes Measles.
Lanka recently won the Court battle against Mr. Bardens, a contestant of his claim, in the second round which was recently approved of by the highest court in Germany (the BGH in the BRD). This video details Lanka's claims, the beginning of the Court battle with Mr. Bardens, as well as the issue he sees with pathogenic viruses in general.
This under-the-radar interview was done in 2014 for a local TV station in Germany. We thank Regio TV eternally for their courage in covering this. It seems that by now the German original of this video has been completely removed from youtube.
Translated and dubbed for your consideration! Please use discernment and always do your own research.
Journalistic sources within the English language space are few and far between... Anybody really surprised about that?^^
https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/01/biologist-proves-measles-isnt-a-virus-wins-supreme-court-case-against-doctor.html
As a viewer on youtube commented:
"Here are the 6 original papers presented by Dr Bardens as "proof" of the existence of the measles virus, read them for yourselves:
https://archive.org/details/EndersPeebles1954
https://archive.org/details/BechVonMagnus1959
https://archive.org/details/HorikamiMoyer1995
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC375751/
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.325.1288&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://www.osaka-med.ac.jp/deps/b-omc/articles/532/532daikoku.pdf
I read the 6 papers in question and they contain absolutely no proof of isolation or purification of any virus at all. Besides, there were absolutely no control experiments, which makes all the experiments worthless and unscientific in the first place. All those scientists started from the wrong premise that when cells in the test tube die it MUST BE a virus killing them. So the death of cells in the test tube was considered to be the effect, the isolation and the proof of the existence of a virus, while they never isolated and purified a complete viral structure.
You can read more on this subject, with all of Lanka's necessary explanations, here:
http://www.wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf"
Remember: Only you can ultimately tell yourself what's true and what isn't. Discern with care and weigh the opposing paradigms accordingly. Always arrive at your own conclusions. Nobody knows what's up on Earth.
Thanks for watching
My video is at DLive
Interesting. Does he propose an idea for what is causing the symptoms of Measles? Is there similar claims, as some are making about polio in recent years?
There's some evidence that the symptoms we associate with Polio are actually caused by chemical poisoning and not acute poliomyelitis. So, if there's no Measles virus, what is the cause here?
I don't necessarily endorse this article...it is merely a sample I found in a quick Internet search. However, if you haven't heard about this theory:
http://liamscheff.com/2011/02/rethinking-polio/
Hey Karl,
As he claims in the interview, toxins and or psychosomatic effects are what "cause" measles, not a pathogenic virus, so in a way you intuited the answer.
I am merely sharing this for everyone's consideration, and while I have my own experiences that throw a lot of questions on the traditional model of medicine, it could of course be that Lanka has missed something as well or made a mistake.
Thanks for the link, I think we should pay attention and question all these narratives as best we can. the truth doesnt need defending, it defends itself. If we are patient and have heard of the alternatives.
Thanks. At first I couldn't get the video to play. Later that day I did finally hear the video where they talked about possible environmental sources. I don't particularly think he makes a very good case for the root causes...but, he's on to something, for sure.
This subject is a bit outside of my wheelhouse so it is difficult to come to a reasonably certain conclusion on my part. That being said, I wonder exactly what standard of evidence he is looking for. I am not making accusations about him specifically but I have seen people challenge others prove things and then set a completely unreasonable standard of proof to insure that no one is able to succeed in their challenge.
The issue, I think, is that a lot of knowledge is difficult to access or interpret for the layperson and that creates a situation in which anyone with the appearance of authority could lie to us without us ever knowing. Who then do we believe? Is it the doctor who could get away with lying to us or is it the person who says the doctor is wrong and is equally able to lie to us? Some just pick whichever they like better but that is not sound way to approach anything. We could try to research things but that only kicks the can a little further down the road because we are left with the same question of who to believe. Some medicine clearly does work and some of it does awful things to us, so it is hard to know what to think when it comes to these issues. I can't say that I have an answer even though I would like to.
Anyway, good post as always.
I really stopped believing people in general and shifted it towards establishing probabilities.
Lanka's input then becomes merely another puzzle piece for a cluster of related inquiries that support and sometimes contradict each other. For example, studying the history of the "AIDS" virus will throw additional light on Lanka's claims here, even though it is a different topic.
In the end I always allow myself the luxury of determining my view by myself, and to regularly update it when new information comes in. His competition's parameters are so specifically defined that it really isn't a matter of believing, but to simply acknowledge when reading the papers that a real objectively defined set of observations to prove the virus theory for measles are missing.
It doesn't mean that Lanka is right, but it is rather fascinating how actual proofs for these "core pillars" of the measles 'myth' remain elusive, despite their omnipresent adapation into our way of life.
Unrecognized assumptions anywhere that lack proof where there should by so much proof of isolation of the virus that the question should never have come up or remained up for this long.
The reason that it's still not answered does raise concerns about how certain these notions of pathogens are in actuality. Specifically because other cultures do not share our view on what a disease is or why people get sick.
Modern medicine works on similar assumptions as modern cosmology, namely an assumed relationship of causality and metaphysics of fundamental separation into bits and peices through physicality. Once that "certainty" starts to break many other ramifications do as well.
Anyways, blablabla. ahaha. What do I know? No idea what is true ;) But exploring these avenues gives us some new horizon - after all when's the last time you have talked to someone who claims that pathogenic viruses don't exist? Lol. I have never <3
Thanks for your thoughts my friend
"But exploring these avenues gives us some new horizon - after all when's the last time you have talked to someone who claims that pathogenic viruses don't exist? Lol. I have never"
Haha very true. I always liked listening to what everyone has to say. Sometimes it has value sometimes it is nonsense but it is almost always entertaining.
Damn right ;)
I like listening to these sorts of extreme viewpoints because next time I hear something along those lines I already have information pertaining to that specific possibility, and we no longer have to pretend it's all as certain as we have been taught.
It would also have huge bearing on the vaccine debate and pretty much anything to do with our conception of what health is and how diseases form.
I have no idea what the truth is - but always open for new perspectives right?