All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:05:55
The Viral Delusion, Ep. 2 - Monkey Business: Polio, Measles and How It All began
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So when this whole thing got started, we're talking now late 1800s, basically Pasteur and Koch and a few other people said, every disease has to be correlated with one microorganism.
And at the time, before electron microscopes, they could only see, they only had a light microscope so they could see bacteria.
So they found certain diseases like anthrax where they found a bacteria.
Now interestingly they didn't find it in everybody with anthrax, which is odd because if anthrax was caused by a bacteria you would think everybody would have it.
Number two, they could find a lot of people who had the bacteria in their tissues who were totally fine.
Anyways, so they had a bunch of illnesses which they could see a bacteria in.
And then they had illnesses, and in particular polio, where they couldn't find a bacteria.
Right?
No bacteria.
They know they're sick.
They seem to be happening in communities.
Therefore, it must be some pathogen smaller than a bacteria which we can't see.
That's the thinking.
So they called it a virus.
Meaning, that's the old Latin word for poison.
So there was some smaller than a bacteria, we can't see it, and that must be what's causing all these people to be sick in situations where we can't find a bacteria.
So how do we prove it?
Well, we take tissue from somebody with polio, and we grind it up, and sometimes they would filter it, so they would take the supernatant, the liquid part, and they would expose it to different animals.
And they tried about 20 different animals.
And then you find something very interesting.
The trouble with determining that polio was a virus was they couldn't find an animal model.
In other words, they couldn't find an animal that got sick from the virus.
Now think about that for a minute.
They tried guinea pigs, and hamsters, and monkeys, and rats, and mice, and gerbils, and everything.
None of them got sick.
So, some people would say, that means the thing doesn't make you sick.
What they said was, there's no animal model for that virus.
And so there was no tissue model.
They hadn't discovered how to make varro cells sick yet.
There's no tissue model.
There's no animal model.
So how do we know that it's making anybody sick?
Well, because a bunch of people in the same place get sick.
So that must mean it's a virus.
So then they said, well, we can try one more time.
So they took a child who had polio.
They took some of their spinal tissue.
Grounded up in some water, filtered it so that they got rid of the cellular stuff.
So they have just basically ground up liquid diseased spinal cord.
Right?
That's not a virus.
That's a whole lot of things.
And they got two monkeys, they drilled a hole in the monkey's brain, injected I don't know how much of this goop into the monkey's brain.
One monkey died and the other got paralyzed.
They hold the monkey up and say, see we've transmitted the virus to the monkey.
Now, as I've said, the only thing I can say for sure is that if you're a Z spinal cord directly into your brain, your best bet is to run.
Because it's a good chance that nothing good will come out of it.
And in fact, like, there's such a thing as called brainstem herniation, which means if you inject stuff into your brain, the brainstem herniates down and gets stuck in the bony hole, and then you die. the brainstem herniates down and gets stuck in the bony So you would think that if you're going to inject like a half a cup of diseased brains, you know, spinal cord into somebody's brain, you would do a half a cup of saline.
Or milk.
Or something to see maybe it's because of the injection of stuff into a monkey's brain.
But they didn't do that.
They didn't do any controls.
they just said that 1907 was the proof that polio is caused by a virus.
And you read that and you think, what the heck?
Like, like, that's not, that's just nuts.
*music*
They did these experiments where they had essentially a child who died of polio.
And they took like the brain and spinal cord or just the spinal cord That's where polio affects the disease.
It's actually the name of the disease is poliomyelitis, which is means that it is affects a specific part of the spinal cord.
And polio is just short for that.
Um, and so what they did is they took children who died of polio and they took that their spinal cord that was diseased and they chopped it up in a blender And they tried to give it to experimental animals to see if they could cause polio.
And they gave it to them every which way.
Like they shoved it down their nose or throat.
They even injected it and none of the animals got polio.
So finally what they did was they actually took this chopped up spinal cord and they opened up the brain of some monkeys and put it directly in the brain.
Well, you know, if you put up dead, rotting tissue from an animal directly into the brain, you know it's going to cause some problems.
And it did.
And they basically said, based on that, here's your evidence that this thing causes polio.
So, if you go to medical school, what you learn is they proved that polio was a virus.
That's what you learn.
You don't even really learn that, but you just learn that it's a virus.
And you assume that somebody, some day, must have shown that it was a virus.
And nobody says, by the way, could you show me the original study that showed this?
Nobody said that.
Everybody knows it's a virus.
You don't ask for evidence or proof.
That is the proof.
Once that becomes sort of the dogma, you can't say, I don't think this is a virus.
I'm an orthodox doctor and I always thought polio is a classic infectious disease, which is limited now by vaccination.
But when we further dig in that problem, we found out that there was no purification of this virus and no animal model of the poliovirus that causes disease in the animal.
Instead, the assumption that polio is transmissible goes back to experiments from Landsteiner.
But they did, again, they did, like Katiuszek, intra-cerebral inoculation and that's really for me it's not a proof for a transmissible virus as we know now it's an allergic reaction against foreign proteins when you inject foreign protein into the brain to get acute allergic
encephalitis now what they never looked at is that there was an invasive species brought over from Europe called the gypsy moth and it was devastating because it was eating all the fruit trees when it came to the country and they started using a compound called lead arsenate which would kill this moth
but this was really the first time they used a chemical pesticide and people didn't have it So what would happen is that this lead arsenate started getting sprayed on all the fruit crops to prevent the moth from devastating them.
Then when they started harvesting the summer fruit, like the strawberries in June, etc.
when did we see polio cases?
Every summer.
So what would happen is that this lead arsenate started getting sprayed on all the fruit crops to prevent the moth from devastating them.
Then when they started harvesting the summer fruit, like the strawberries in June, et cetera, et cetera, the kids who are more sensitive to neurotoxins because they're developing and they're small, they would eat this fruit, get the lead arsenate, and some of them would be paralyzed if they got enough. and some of them would be paralyzed if they got And this happened in the seasonal pattern that exactly matched when they would apply the lead arsenate.
These communities that got polio were the ones that were being sprayed with lead arsenic.
We know that lead arsenic Polio is a specific neurotoxin for the anterior horn cells of the nervous system, exactly the part that's affected with polio.
In Massachusetts, I think, where there was a town where they had installed a couple of cotton mills, and below the cotton mills, there was a polio epidemic.
So, what happened to the cotton industry at the time?
They were introducing a carbon tetrachloride in order to Dissolve the cottonseed oil out of the cottonseed, which is a chemical like DDT, basically.
This is like 1908.
And then also when they did the review of this epidemic, they stated that this epidemic does not have the characteristics of an epidemic.
You can't really trace one person to another as if it was a germ epidemic.
And basically this kept up and at some point they switched from lead arsenate to DDT.
People started talking about polio itself and the iron lung disease, the permanent disease, the paralysis.
It had to have been a polio virus.
They don't stop to look at the fact that DDT, which was sprayed in many areas in the West, When exposed to the body causes paralysis.
DDT, for instance, is one of the most famous toxins which was used in the 40s, 50s.
But we didn't know that it's not a toxin.
We didn't know that at that time.
There are studies that show that.
That DD causes disintegration of the anterior horn, which is the definition of Infantile Paralysis, Polio.
They did studies on animals.
They also found that around 1951 that the calves of cattle that were grazing on DDT doused fields on grass that had DDT in it, that the calves were dying of Neurological symptoms similar to polio.
So, that was one of the things that officially brought an end to DDT, was that the children of cattle were dying, but nobody cared about the children of humans.
Interestingly, in the veterinary medicine and the animal medicine, polio, the paralyzed calves, were suggested to be caused were suggested to be caused by the high DDT levels in the cow milk.
When I was a kid, polio was a huge thing.
I was right...
I was raised right in the middle of the polio epidemic.
And I remember one of the classmates in grade school, she was on crutches and she had polio.
So it was a big deal in my mind.
And I also understood the timeline of DDT, but I never put them together.
It's amazing we don't all put it together.
You know, they poured tons of DDT all over the place and there was no symptoms.
You know?
So, it's pretty obvious.
I remember, I don't know how old you guys are, I remember as a child in Detroit where they had the biggest outbreak of polio, in the summer we used to run behind these machines that were spraying out this sweet smelling gas.
Right?
So that they would go to the ball fields, and this sprayer would come, and it would spray out that smelled like bubblegum.
And it would be, you'd run around, and sometimes you had your bicycle, and you'd ride around in the mist.
In the bubblegum mist.
You know what they were spraying?
It was DDT.
And that was exactly the place where I grew up, where they had the biggest outbreak of polio in history, was in Detroit.
And DDT is a specific neurotoxin for the anterior horn cells of the nervous system.
And every place where you see polio outbreaks has one of those two as something that happened.
Like they go to India and they spray DDT or some organophosphate insecticide.
Next thing you know they have a polio outbreak.
You just can't look at anything without the DDT polio theory being confirmed, no matter how you look at the data.
It just keeps coming, you know.
So when I had enough, I wrote an article and I found that other people had actually already believed this, which was Mobs, Biskin, and Scobie.
These three people Who are never referenced.
There's no references to them.
Can you tell us about who Biskind was and what you found that he was saying?
Well, his specialty was hormones, the hormone system.
He was an M.D.
And he was an M.D., and he's deceased now, but he started writing in 1905.
He had an article published in an Israeli medical journal.
The DDT, he thought, was the cause of the polio epidemic.
Then he wrote some other articles in pediatric journals.
He wrote some of these with a co-author named Then there was another author I found named Scobie.
Who's that?
Ralph Scobie.
He was more rigorous in going in detail, a lot of detail.
The thing about Biscan is that he just had this sense of nobility and honesty.
And his logic and the way he wrote was really beautiful.
But Scopey was, he, you could see how he was setting up documentation for history for people to find him later, because he knew he was up against a big political hurdle.
So he had these super referenced articles on how polio virus was politically Prioritize and how any toxicological view of polio was being subverted with tons of references.
So that was it.
There's many potential causes or suspect causes over the centuries for polio.
Arsenic, I have graphs for arsenic, graphs for lead.
There's arsenic pesticides, lead pesticides, and then there's the chlorine pesticides.
And I have all these together, and they map out, and they match up with polio incidents, you know.
The mainstream medicine avoided some extremely obvious toxicological suspects.
And that, that indicts them.
The crucial experiment was not done in polio.
But they got, instead they found the virus and claimed the virus to be the cause of polio.
And then the vaccination business started and then the thing was gone.
Another Nobel Prize.
The thing was gone.
What would be the crucial experiment?
The crucial experiment would be to show with this virus they claimed to cause polio in humans to do the experiment in animals to cause When the electron microscope was invented in the late twenties, the people in this area of research, they said, oh, this is a great tool.
Now we're going to look and maybe we can find something that we couldn't see with the previous microscopes.
Because this could see things much, much smaller, the electron microscope.
And then it was really exciting when they saw all these particles.
And they were like, One of these particles must be the virus.
And so they did all these purification experiments where they tried, they took the fluid or tissue from a sick person and they tried to purify out the particles.
And they couldn't.
They could not be successful with identifying a particle.
And one of the big things they said is, well, we can't tell if the particles are just from the dying tissue or from something else.
Never could differentiate that so they were pretty much about to give up on the whole field when Enders came along and when they made this polio vaccine that was a commercial success.
Enders, he said look I'm not using bacteria but I use tissue, flatten the tissue and put seemingly infected material on it and if it's dying that it's possibly the proof that it's transforming itself into viral matter.
But that was self-deception, because what he didn't realize, because he and all followers never did control experiment, was that he was using highly toxic antibiotics in order to keep the bacteria out, and he was starving them.
And they were using fetal sera to feed them, and it's Fully full with microbes, with nucleic acid of all wise kind of living, you know, it's not sterile.
So the condition, what they were using to prepare the cells for the control experiment, are the very same conditions making them die.
And they didn't realize it because they never performed control experiments.
They had the same amount of proteins but sterilized, you know, and to see what's happening.
Never ever they carried out this.
And they were not wondering why they can't isolate the virus.
They were convinced the dying of the cell must be caused by a virus.
This was the assumption out of their faith that there must be a virus.
Which is responsible for that kind of diseases.
And therefore, they were fooling themselves and fooling the public.
And what happened, that in this very paper, 1st June 1954, John Franklin Anders and his co-author They're writing, take care about this preliminary findings because sometimes our culture is dying even if you do nothing with them.
So it can be that an unknown virus is inside or unknown factors and we... Be careful, not make assumptions.
And he warns the audience or the readers that this has to be proven and it has to be proven if this system In the lab has something to do with real measles, you know?
This is in this paper.
You see it on your own, just read it.
But, half a year later, he received the Nobel Prize for another idea out of the old biology on poliovirus.
That the virus should not be specific to his tissues.
And this Nobel Prize made him blind.
This speculative paper of 1st June 1954 became, in the same moment he received the Nobel Prize, it became a scientific fact which never ever is possible to question.
I mean, the Nobel Prize, it's more worth in the field of science than the words of a hundred popes together.
Definitely.
If you receive the Nobel Prize, that's such a great thing and that's the definite proof that it's important and true and scientific what you did.
So, from a Nobel Prize, for an idea out of the falsified paradigm of virology, this made a scientific fact from this paper and became the whole basis Not only for measles virology, but for the whole field of virology.
When they caught a virus, then they said, look, we isolated it, we have it, it's multiplying and we have all parts of the virus.
And what they are doing, they took out proteins and add them mentally together to a model of something which they never could show that it exists, never able to isolate it, and of course never ever being able to show it inside the human being, in animal or in a liquid, in sperm, in blood, you know, nowhere.
All photographs shown and claimed those are particles are very highly manipulated structures of dying cells in a test tube.
About eight months after my article on polio was published, a biochemist, Howard Urnovitz, looked into the idea of polio oscillations, He found the famous studies claiming to have isolated polio virus were actually false.
If you read the studies, their idea of what they call an isolation of polio virus was actually Not much more than putting some feces in water and blending it and then putting that into a centrifuge to separate the clear liquid from the feces.
And this clear liquid they declared was a virus, isolated virus, you know.
That's obviously patently false and he discovered that.
He went through several studies Well, if you can't isolate a virus, or isolate anything in fact, you can't know what it is, or what it does, or what its function is.
You have to be able to conceive something as a separate entity in order to understand it.
And they can't isolate viruses.
They can look at mixtures, and they can claim that they have a virus isolated there, but the only thing they did In terms of isolation, it's redefined the word isolate as a mixture.
So they took a word and turned it upside down.
And they run around telling people they isolated a virus, but all they did was find a mixture which they claim a virus is in.
That's all the virologists are doing.
They're basically reinventing language.
So this was the paper that got the Nobel Prize for discovering how to isolate a virus.
And it was done with measles.
So, they say they swabbed the throat and immersed the swab in two milliliters of milk.
The first thing that's curious about that is, if you're looking for a particle of genetic material from the measles person, you wouldn't want to mix it with milk, which has genetic material of its own.
But that's what they did.
Then the culture medium consists of bovine amniotic fluid 90%, beef embryo extract 5%, and horse serum 5%.
Now these are all three different sources of rich genetic material.
Now sometimes they use different animal embryonic fluid or human embryonic fluid or something, but it's always some combination So now we have five sources of genetic material.
We have milk, beef embryo amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, bovine serum, and monkey kidney tissue.
And then they add penicillin and streptomycin.
Now they add amphotericin and genomicin, which interestingly are nephrotoxic drugs, meaning poisonous to the kidneys.
So in other words, they break your kidney tissue down.
And then they add soybean trypsin inhibitor.
And so then the whole thing breaks down into millions of pieces of genetic material.
And that's called an isolated virus.
Now, here's an interesting thing.
When the guy who came up with this method, which is exactly the method that all these papers today use, they take lung fluid, mix it with four or five different sources of genetic material, Inoculate that on kidney tissue.
Poison the kidney tissue with specific nephrotoxic, kidney toxic drugs.
And by the way, they sometimes say we use genomicin instead of penicillin because we get a better yield of the virus.
Because penicillin is not so damaging to the kidney tissue.
Genomycin is more damaging, so you get a better breakdown of the stuff.
And then they say that the evidence that it was a virus that killed the monkey kidney tissue is so-called cytopathic changes.
In other words, the kidney tissue broke down.
But here in the paper that got the Nobel Prize, it's from John Enders, he said, a second agent was obtained from uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.
The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparation could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.
So the translation of that is we did a control, and so instead of starting with something from somebody with measles, we started with nothing.
And the breakdown we got was the same.
Now, if you let that sink in a minute, what he just told you is it had nothing to do with anything from somebody with measles.
It had to do with the way that we broke down the tissue.
In other words, he just disproved that there was something from a measles person that caused these changes in the kidney tissue.
And then he goes on as if he didn't prove that.
that, but then he says later, in the follow-up paper, "Ruckel has lately reported similar findings, "in addition has isolated an agent from monkey kidney tissue "that is indistinguishable from human measles virus."
In other words, he just told you that the particles that you get from the breakdown of the monkey kidney tissue are indistinguishable from what he's calling measles virus.
In other words, that's where the particles came from, from the breaking down of the tissue.
He just proved that there was no infecting agent in this mixture.
Because it's the same whether you start with measles or not.
This has been the standard type of cell culture they've done since that time, 1954.
But they use that cell culture to manufacture a vaccine because they take the fluid out of the toxic cell culture.
And essentially that is a live virus vaccine.
So Enders won the Nobel Prize for these efforts and related to this research and also helping to develop the polio vaccine.
And that changed the whole way that this paper was interpreted.
Now suddenly it was taken as a way to prove the existence of a virus.
Because they could repeat it.
So they could pretty much take any fluid.
from any sick person with any disease that they say is viral.
They could do it with other diseases, but they didn't because they only wanted to use this to talk about viruses.
And put it in this recipe of the toxic cell culture with toxic antibiotics, and they usually use ones that are specifically toxic to the type of cells in the culture.
So when they use kidney cells, they use antibiotics like streptomycin, gentamicin, and amphotericin B, which are all specifically toxic to the kidneys.
They starve the culture, and then they add other biological materials like bovine calf serum, like fetal bovine serum rather, like from calves in the womb, their blood.
And they can show these, what they call, cytopathic effects, which is damage to the cells from this every single time.
And then when cells are damaged, they make particles like exosomes and apatotic bodies and other types of particles that don't even have names.
And they can just point to whatever particle they want and say, there's the virus.
So it's very convenient.
It just doesn't come close to proving what they say it does.
And so the fact that Enders helped manufacture this polio vaccine and created this technique, you know, this tissue culture experiment, you know, the so-called virus isolation, it's not just the way to, you the so-called virus isolation, it's not just the way to, you know, discover a new It's also the way to manufacture a new vaccine.
So this is a commercial experiment, right?
Now they've changed that paradigm.
They're changing it now, okay?
But for the last 50 years, every virus vaccine was manufactured and created in this way.
This one experiment, both prove a new virus and manufacture a new vaccine.
It's very, very convenient.
And you can see that it fits perfectly in the vaccine business model. - Next thing you know, they're vaccinating children with polio.
And if you remember, there were two vaccines for polio.
There was first the Salk vaccine, and that caused a lot of illness, and it was taken off the market.
It was considered unsafe.
And then, like three years later, they introduced the Sabin vaccine.
So if you look at, you know, when the vaccines were developed, and when they were actually utilized, because like the Salk vaccine, only a very small number of people got it.
You'll see that polio went away before there was any vaccine that people were getting.
And it was basically when they stopped using DDT and lead arsenate that it went away.
And then, by the way, with polio, before the vaccine you had to, I always have trouble getting this right, you had to have symptoms for a day and you were called polio, like paralysis.
After the vaccine, you had to have symptoms for I think it was six months continuously to be called polio.
So since 95% of the children resolve on their own, they just detoxify, the incidence of polio goes way down because of the vaccine because they changed the definition of how long you had to be paralyzed in order to be diagnosed with polio.
So immediately, the next month, the polio diagnosis is gone, and now they have something called acute flaccid paralysis, which there was in the last 10 years in India, I think it was 497,000 cases of acute flaccid paralysis, which means something acute happens, and then you get paralyzed.
That's the definition of polio.
But now they don't call it polio because they're vaccinated and they call it acute flaccid paralysis and then we're good.
And, you know, I think it was, there was a big commercial aspect because, you know, this vaccine, the polio vaccine, I mean, you don't, you know, people don't realize that if you go back to vaccines that were much earlier, people did not want them.
People fought against them.
They did not want their kids, even just an injection.
It was extremely unusual that anyone would be subjected to an injection.
It was seen, you know, as an unsafe thing to actually purposely pierce your skin with a sharp implement and put something in.
So when they had like the earlier vaccines, like the diphtheria serum that they were trying to give and things like that, parents were not interested in doing this to their children.
They had to like come up with all these like marketing campaigns to convince anyone.
But polio was so scary and devastating because every summer, you know, there'd be kids getting paralyzed and dying.
And they, those images with the iron lung, people were so afraid this for the first time they were willing, they were almost, you know, desperate for something.
And they, that was the, the first really successful vaccine commercially, even though it actually had nothing to do with, with stopping polio.
It, there was the, the public perception that it was.
And even when I went to medical school, that was still held up as the shining example of the miracle of vaccines was polio.
People have sent me in this past year, let me just take a guess, 50 papers called The Isolation of SARS-CoV-2.
Now it may be 48, but you know, it's a lot.
The, you know, both the normal virology community and the sort of alternative community sends me paper after paper saying, here's how they isolated.
Here's a paper showing the isolation of this virus.
Every single one did it the exact same way.
They did the tissue culture experiment.
Developed by Enders, the same one that is in every single paper that claims virus isolation.
They don't do any other method.
They might vary a little thing here and there, but they're doing the same exact experiment.
They take snot and they inoculate it onto tissue culture, usually monkey kidney cells, which are called virocells.
Now, you could take any other culture, like human cells or It's the same, only with a little bit of changes.
And as they are using sometimes a little bit different cell cultures, they say, look, we have another type of virus, another protein, another vaccine.
But in the end, they are doing exactly the same.
Exactly the protocol of Anders.
Now, somebody could say, well, but 63 years later, surely we can distinguish the breakdown of, like, our tissue, our monkey kidney tissue, from an exogenous virus, right?
So, here's a article that was in Viruses May 2020.
They're talking about now they have a better name for coming from the breakdown of our tissues, they call it extracellular vesicles and exosomes.
But that means when we get poisoned or sick, then we break down into these particles.
And the question of this article was, can we tell the difference between this breakdown versus something coming from outside?
Right?
So he says, quote, however, to date, a reliable method that can guarantee a separation from extracellular vesicles and exosomes from viruses, quote, does not exist. - Yes.
We can't tell the difference.
And essentially what that means is all of these genetic pieces that we're calling viruses are just the breaking down of our own tissue.
And if we get poisoned or sick, by the way, I didn't say in this culture experiment, if you take snot from measles or COVID patient, mix it with bovine serum, et cetera, and then inoculate it on kidney tissue and put antibiotics in it, it still doesn't break down.
You have to starve the tissue.
What they call minimal nutrient medium.
In other words, if you take a tissue and feed it, like, good tissue food, you know, like, sugar and amino acids, you can't get it to break down by putting a measles virus, even a measles virus and antibiotics, I mean, to break down a little bit, but not much.
So they learn that they have to starve the tissue first, and then it breaks down.
And they don't do a control by saying, "What if we just feed it normal tissue food, and then it doesn't break down?" So it must have been the fact that we starved it.
And this is how they are fooling themselves.
And only because they are working inside scientific institutions or with tools, technical tools you can really do science with, they think it's science.
We are just following the things.
The first duty of a scientist, and to claim that something is scientific, it's to question it, and to question it and yourself.
That's a written duty.
And only if you cannot falsify your theory and your finding, and you show that the method you used, it's not inducing the result.
Then you can speak out about the scientific matter.
Well, I am by training a clinical psychologist and a historian of science.
I did a PhD in clinical psychology in Badland, a PhD in history and theory of science in Vienna.
And history of science is kind of my scientific hobby and has been all the time.
How do the social powers that shape science interact to produce facts?
And I think the core element of a Historically informed theory of science is about understanding the social forces that shape facts.
Normally people think facts are out there, like flowerpots standing on the balcony.
But scientific facts are not flowerpots standing on the balcony.
Scientific facts are constructs, highly complex constructs that are being produced by People who look at facts, by people who want the facts to be in a certain way, by economic powers that want to gain money from the facts, and everything together that is a scientific fact.
And that's what interests me.
I ran into the Federal Minister of Justice in Germany.
She was very often to my village Langnagen and so she rang me later and she still was a member of the parliament and in the back scene an influential person.
People were listening to her and she asked me if I have new proof, you know, disproving the existence of measles virus because there were all the rumors that we need obligation to get vaccinated against measles, which is naturalized already by the end of last year.
And she asked me if I have proofs that the Robert Koch Institute has no proof.
And therefore, easy, I said, look, I am offering €100,000 for a person being able to show me a scientific publication of the Robert Koch Institute.
Because they are obliged by law to do research on all kinds of viruses causing disease.
That's their duty.
And I knew they have no publication on the measles virus.
They publish photos and text on this, but it's not published scientifically.
So no description how this photo derived, how they did it, who did it, and, you know, nothing.
And this I knew.
And so I went public with this.
Well, this was actually serendipity, I would say.
I one day heard about him having put out that prize, right?
Anybody who is able to show him a measles virus.
Or a publication that produces valid information about a measles virus would receive, I think, 100,000 euros, something like that.
I found that very, very funny because, like everybody else, I thought, well, what's that?
I mean, everybody knows there is measles.
I've had it when I was a child.
People are being vaccinated against it.
So why would you want to ask for a measles virus?
And so I looked into that, and I've actually phoned him, made contact with him.
And asked him, and he said, well, it's very simple.
There is no definitive proof out in the scientific literature that there is such a thing as a measles virus.
And I found that very interesting from a social scientific point of view.
Because I thought, how could that be?
And so I followed that up, and I asked him what happened, and then he said, one doctor, I think he was associated with the German skeptics community, sent him seven or so publications, and he sent them to me, to see what it was.
As you probably know, or as is known by now, in the first trial he lost, so he didn't pay the money.
The specialist, the court's specialist, Asked by the court to examine those six papers, he said, none of them have a proof for the existence of a virus.
But, he said, arguments taken out and put together, basically together, are delivering the proof for the existence of the virus.
And therefore, I was sentenced.
But then he went to the courts a second time, and then he was actually vindicated.
And the judge said, well, there has not been produced a definitive proof of a measles virus.
What happened, there was a new judge from the three, and she was directly coming from university after her PhD, and she was thinking logically.
She asked him, Dr. Lanka is questioning that in those six papers there are no control experiments.
And very interesting, he in his written statement said in two statements, sure the control experiments are there, but visibly they are not there.
There's no chapter on control experiments.
He cheated.
So what happened when the specialist admitted to the question, if now the control experiments are carried out, and if we can really speak of scientific papers, all of them, six, because they are only scientific if the control experiments are carried out.
And he said, and it's still in the protocol, it's there.
He said, none of those six papers have, includes negative controls.
And that means they are not scientific.
And all the journalists, they were so disappointed, they were happy being at the Lake Constance, hanging around, you know, and the process should go on for a long, long, you know, period, you know, but then it was, and everybody, it's not possible.
They were shocked.
Then on the high court level, in Stuttgart, I won.
And when I looked at those seven publications which that guy had sent in as purported proof, I was really astonished to see what I would say a good indication that there was something going on, but certainly not a proof.
I talked to Lanka and said, well, how can that be?
Why didn't he present a better type of material?
And Lanka said on the phone, well, there is none.
And I guess there is indeed none.
And when I found that out, I went to see a professor of virology, of infectiology in Leipzig, who is really a very smart person, and talked at length to her.
And she confirmed, there is not really a very definitive proof of that.
It's this one-dimensional fear-mongering model.
So the one-dimensional model is also far from reality.
That there's one disease and one cause and only one possibility to fight it.
So you have one disease and the only cause is the virus.
And then every other possible cause is excluded.
And then you can only fight it with drugs and vaccines.
And you have this fear-mongering, you need it to make it look very scary.
Now the irony of this whole thing is when you get down to, so how do you make these particles called a virus, It's clear.
You starve and poison tissue, and it breaks down into a virus.
Well, it's not a virus, but a genetic pieces, which we call misconception, call the virus.
So the same thing.
How do you make a person sick?
You starve and poison them, and then they break down into these pieces, and we call it a virus, and we say they're sick.
Same thing.
At the end of the day, people want to know, how do I stay healthy?
Everybody's telling me to be terrified of coronavirus.
They're telling me to be terrified of AIDS.
We don't know when Ebola is going to come next.
I've seen movies with people in these spacesuits worried about this Ebola.
How do we...
What's your take on all of that?
How do people integrate that?
How do they deal with all of this?
How do they think about it?
Well, let me tell you from my research on Ebola.
Let's start with that first.
I don't want people assuming something that they ought not to assume.
I am convinced the Ebola thing is a total, complete hoax.
One thing that Americans, especially people who are not Americans, they always get a kick when I say this.
I say, it's so funny here in the United States.
We always get these plagues that come from China, come from Africa.
We never have a red, white, and blue one, you know?
Epidemic.
They always come from somewhere else.
When I did this thing for John Rappaport on Ebola, and I looked in there and all the original papers on Ebola.
There's a classic thing.
Nobody isolated a virus.
No.
Not done.
I've still got those papers and everything.
I sent them all to John Rappaport.
And then I looked up and I read these things about the so-called outbreaks and things like that, about where they happened.
One of the big opal outbreaks happened in a mine, an abandoned mine.
Only the people that went down in that mine It came back with this horrible disease.
Supposedly it's an infectious virus that they should have been able to transmit to other people.
Of course that didn't happen.
The other people that were in the area and the people that met the people that came back out of the mine that eventually became sick, none of them got sick.
And of course this mine had been abandoned for a long time.
I think it was a gold mine.
guess what toxic chemicals they use in gold mining, like arsenic and stuff like that.
I mean, you know, you have this abandoned place.
Who knows what all kinds of toxic chemicals and things are down in there, heavy metals and stuff, and what they were breathing and all this kind of crap.
These people got sick.
I don't dispute the fact that they got sick and had problems.
But why didn't all the people above ground, you know, get them?
Why was that the place that they were talking about an Ebola outbreak?
you know Where are your other examples of an Ebola outbreak?
Where's the little village where they're spreading this stuff around?
And it was in the midst of one of those interminable wars.
This was in the Congo, I believe it was.
I think that was the country that we were talking about.
They had these battles, these wars going on all the time.
The Congo is one of the richest resource countries in Africa.
Now, Africa is loaded with resources.
The West wants those resources.
They want to take them any way they can.
Papua New Guinea, where I was a Peace Corps volunteer there.
It's an island, the only island bigger than it is Iceland.
And it's a huge amount of resources.
It has oil oozing out of the soil.
You can see it.
And I was in the highlands.
You know?
Yeah.
And they have minerals, they have all sorts of stuff.
A great place.
The healthiest people I've ever met in my life.
Absolutely healthiest people I've ever met in my life were these Papua New Guineans.
This should be important for people.
I'm glad I even reminded myself about this.
I was teaching high school there and I noticed nobody's wearing glasses.
I went up to the headmaster one day and I said, I guess there aren't students wearing glasses because they're just too poor.
He said, no, they don't need them.
In fact, nobody needed glasses there.
They were so healthy, strong, capable people.
They've been there for 30 or 50,000 years.
Nobody knows how long they've been there.
These people have been there, you know?
And they knew how to take care of themselves.
I have a feeling that the people on this continent before the Europeans showed up... I know what I read from some of the... what the missionaries wrote about the North American Indians.
They weren't the Spaniards.
They might have been the British people that wrote about them.
I have a feeling that the North American Indians were like the Papua New Guineans.
Extremely healthy people.
Because that's what they wrote about.
About how healthy and strong and sturdy these people were.
You know?
This is really what I want to try to capture.
And it's so obvious.
But I want to kind of remind people that we are being sold a vision where health is delivered to you by technology.
Yeah, yeah, that's for sure.
I know.
How did we exist on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years before the white-jacketed people showed up?
Oh, I mean, I almost accept nothing that's become mainstream about health.
Almost nothing anymore.
The whole thing cooked up again in the BSC time when people thought it might be possible that the mad cow disease, but indeed it was also an intoxication of the cow, was the cause of mad cow disease, because they but indeed it was also an intoxication of the cow, was the cause of mad cow disease, because they changed
because they changed the law in Great Britain that the farmers should do higher dosage of this fosmate on the neck of the cows because of the wobble fly, which was a disease which damaged which was a disease which damaged the cows and the milk wasn't good enough.
So they said what the farmers had to do some more fosmate on the necks and fosmate is organophosphate and if you get much enough to your nervous system, then you get these problems with your axons and you get neuropathia and that's then you get these problems with your axons and you get neuropathia and that's the true cause He said,
Well, they noticed that because they had investigations and they had a commission there and they know about the problem of fosmeta and they changed the law again.
So they said, well, it might be possible that there's a connection.
And since they have the lower dose again, the mad cow disease is not anymore there.
Throughout medical history, whenever we've seen A group of symptoms move through a community or different cities.
We've only attributed it to an infectious illness.
We have never stopped to consider what other things could be going on in the health of these people in these communities.
We've never stopped to consider toxins that were sprayed in the air, toxins that were sprayed on food, toxins that were put into the water.
We've never stopped to understand nutritional deficiencies, vitamin C deficiencies, vitamin D deficiencies, B vitamin deficiencies, and what that looks like When stressors affect the community, and as a result of those stressors, people start expressing symptoms.
We've never attributed the onset of infectious diseases to other environmental issues like clean water, dirty water, sewage systems, no sewage systems, crowded no sewage systems, crowded living conditions, better living conditions, war, poverty, starvation.
starvation.
These are all factors that if we dig into the history books, we know that many of the infectious illnesses are really manifestations of any one or many of the things that I just listed that are dietary, and environmentally driven.
That's a problem.
Because we have huge amounts of literature to show other potential causes of the expression of what looks like infectious diseases, but actually are not.
I mean, there's such an easy way to practice Western medicine without using pharmaceutical drugs.
But the basis behind medical education is the use of drugs.
Thank you.
It's the cornerstone of western medical practice.
Pharma?
Drugs?
Injections?
- Yes sir. - You know, this is not the first time with polio that the entire medical community has mistaken a illness for being an infection.
Because that's the problem with this epidemiological proof.
Meaning, so here you had sailors on a boat.
One after another got sick.
They would go to the port, and then the next sailors got sick.
And of course everybody thought they were spreading one thing to the next person.
And then somebody ate a lemon or a lime and the whole thing went away and they said, well, it must be scurvy.
Vitamin C deficiency.
That happened with beriberi and pellagra for, you know, decades, if not centuries.
These simple nutrient deficiencies, you know, when... I'm not an expert on this, but one of them is if you don't soak your corn properly, right?
Native people They soaked corn and even put ashes in it, and it's called mixtalization or something.
And that makes the B vitamins more available.
So the people in the South didn't know that, so they just ate corn.
And then they died of, I think, pellagra or beriberi, one of the two.
Because one of the B vitamins is not available, and then you get sick.
And because it happened in families, right?
Because this family ate a lot of corn and that family ate potatoes and they didn't get sick.
And so they said it must be something spreading in the family.
That's exactly the problem with using epidemiology to determine causation.
It's just Because really everybody admits it's inappropriate.
I just wanted to add something else because I think it's very important.
I think what is also important to note is that the idea of the modern, highly industrialized societies we are living in, and I think the message of this society is that nature is not enough and that you need The modern man to improve it.
That's the idea behind Monsanto and so many other things and industries.
I think that's what is in so many people's mind of today.
that they think that we need the technology of modern man to solve our problems.
And this is why now they believe that there's a pandemic and so of course there's only one solution, the technology of modern man, but that's the solution.
So they lost, so they do not think anymore in the possibility that there can be other solutions and solutions that modern technology is not a solution.
This is maybe even causing the problems we are trying to solve.
It's not.
It's only... And you know, I've now got to the point where if somebody says, is there enough epidemiology to investigate whether COVID is an infection?
I say yes.
I don't need to hear another story about how Aunt Bessie went singing and got sick.
I get it.
So let's investigate whether it's a virus.
We did.
It's not.
Move on!
You know, I don't need any more stories.
▲
Export Selection