All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
30:12
The Argument Against "Virus" Theory - Dr. Lee Merritt
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to The Flying Unicorn Myth, The Argument Against Virus Theory.
I'm Dr. Lee Merritt, and thank you for joining me today.
In summary of Part 1, we have much more commonality between the genomes of all living things than we are told.
When you look at the PCR test and you run the sequences through the gene bank, the gene bank search is set to hide that fact, in my opinion.
But if you are...
Competent and thinking about what you're looking at and you run the test through multiple organisms, you'll find that the PCR test for bird flu shows up human as well as it shows up avian flu.
The sequences on the PCR test can be found in many places, not just the viral genome they claim is unique, which means it invalidates the test.
The disease, the PCR test is useless for the diagnosis of any disease from any animal.
In part two, we're going to talk about the challenge and trial of Stefan Lanca.
Stefan Lanca had a PhD.
I thought it was initially, well, maybe it was microbiology, but I was thinking it was initially virology, but he functioned as a virologist.
And he renounced his association with virology and just said, just call me a microbiologist.
On November 24th of 2011, Dr. Lanca put out a...
A challenge.
He announced on his website that he would offer a prize of £100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus.
And I'm going to read the announcement word for word because that will be important when you hear the court outcome.
Quote, the reward will be paid if a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.
A Dr. Bardens...
Took him up on the challenge, sent him six papers that he said proved the measles virus and now wanted his money.
Stefan Lanca said, no, that doesn't prove the measles virus for this and that reason.
And Dr. Barnes took him to court.
So on March 12th of 2015, the district court in Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled and that Dr. Lanca needed to pay up.
But Dr. Lanca appealed the ruling.
And a year later in February, This came at a time when COVID was breaking out and it caught Alex Zek's attention and he He
was pretty excited about this because he said, this makes a lie of everything that we're doing in COVID. He put this out in several podcasts.
Stephen Kirsch, Steve Kirsch, who you probably know from his substack and things, he said, no, no, no, that's not right either.
Alec's claims of the end of virology are very seriously flawed.
He calls it perhaps, he's speaking of Alec here, he says, he calls it perhaps, quote, the most important work of our time.
Hardly.
It's all bad science that proves or disproves absolutely nothing other than it is easy to fool people who are not scientists.
Now, Steve Kerr is an engineer, so in all fairness, neither of us, none of us here are scientists in this specialty, but that's not what you need here to dissect this, okay?
Because we do have specialists that went to court.
Here's what Steve...
Kirst wrote, he said, but Lanca had the decision overturned by arguing that his challenge required the proof to be in a single paper, a condition he never brought up in the lower court trial, because he realized it later as a way to get out of paying the bet.
And clearly, Bardens didn't realize it had to be in a single paper because Bardens put in a lot of work to assemble the six papers.
Well, let me tell you, if you know about the classics in virology, you're going to find them here some, because these are the only ones on measles.
It's true that the court ruling was overturned on a technicality.
It was, because once it's overturned, you don't really care about the rest.
I mean, the idea is to win in court.
So that's a technical thing.
It's used in all sorts of court cases.
I mean, the point is, he did not specify the terms of the contract.
But...
That's not the only thing that came out of the court case.
That's the important part.
What was the real upshot of the court case?
There was an appointed expert, Andreas Podbilski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock.
What he said was this, that even though the existence of measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers, no authors had conducted controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice.
He considered this a methodologic weakness.
Wow, this is much more than just a methodologic weakness, or it is a methodologic weakness, but it's of supreme import.
Because if you haven't done controlled studies, you don't know that what you're saying is actually true or just artifact.
I'm actually surprised he could make those two statements at once.
In classic virology, what they consider a sign of viral presence in a culture dish is cell death or cytopathic effect.
You can't look at viruses directly, as we'll see in a minute.
You have to culture it.
And when you culture it, you mix it with all sorts of things.
This infected material into a foreign cell culture.
The way they do it, you're putting it on a starvation diet.
They're treated with antibiotics and often with antifungals, which are very toxic, and they add fetal calf serum.
So when you do all this, you get the cytopathic effect.
But what Dr. Lanka showed is that you can get the exact same cytopathic effect or dead cells by...
Doing the same process of the foreign cell culture, the starvation diet, but not adding any infectious material.
So what does that tell you?
It tells you this is artifact.
It's not real.
Here are the six publications I'm just putting here for reference.
There are no other apparent publications that attempt to prove the measles virus.
The paper I highlighted there by John F. Enders we'll be talking about a little later because John F. Enders, he's considered, quote, The guy who started the ball rolling by saying he had cultured viruses.
Professor Anna Mankertz was also involved in the trial.
She was the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the RKI in Germany.
Professor Mankertz has admitted that the measles virus contains typical cells' natural components, ribosomes, the protein factories of cells.
Wait a minute.
You can't have that, okay?
Because that means they're not a virus.
By definition...
We have said a virus is the viral genome.
Whether it's RNA or DNA, it's a viral genome wrapped in a lipid coating that flies around, can get desiccated, but gets into you and gets through your membranes, into your genetic material, and intercalates itself and starts reproducing in your cells and makes you sick.
That's the definition of a virus.
It's strictly genetic material wrapped in a viral coating of lipids.
So the court expert, Professor Pudbilski, stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI, With regards to ribosomes, ribosomes are what we all have in our cells to make proteins.
It's part of us.
It's not part of a virus.
But he said that if they're going to say that's part of a virus, then the thesis of the existence of measles virus has been falsified.
And it was also put on record that the RKI, contrary to its legal requirement to divulge the testing and show us the testing, has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these.
The RKI claims that it...
Again, what does that tell you?
There's a problem.
It's just like Carey Mullis said.
If you're going to assert something, in this case that the measles virus exists, and that we have a test for it, then you better give us the test, and you better show us how the test is being done.
After this then concluded, any national and international statements on the alleged virus, the infectivity of measles and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal status.
I think he's correct there because they legally showed It doesn't meet the criteria that they've put out elsewhere.
Furthermore, Dr. Lanka goes on to show that virologists have never seen or isolated viruses in humans, animals, plants, or their fluids.
They only did it seemingly indirectly and only ever by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory.
That's the culture I'm showing you.
I was showing you a little minute ago.
They never mentioned the control attempts nor documented whether they succeeded in depicting and isolated viruses in and from humans, animals, plants, or the fluids.
I'll show you how that's very different than bacteria here in a minute.
We're going to move here to part three, SARS-CoV-2 and viral isolation.
The SARS-CoV-2...
The virus was discovered in Wuhan, China.
There were seven patients with severe pneumonia.
They had fluid.
One of them had fluid taken out from the lung.
Others swabbed and things.
And they sent specimens to the laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, pictured here.
Now, I said I was not going to make comments about...
Who could be doing this and motive and things?
However, I'm just going to...
Don't take this as that.
This is a statistical question.
What is the chance that in a country the size of China, which is over 9,500,000 square kilometers, this disease broke out and was first isolated within 20 kilometers of the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
It was a 30-minute drive from the open market where they claimed the first patients were...
We're found to where they isolated the virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
I'm just saying I think that's a little odd.
There were two cardinal papers that came out of that.
A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.
These guys here are the clinical researchers that were involved in determining that this was a new novel virus, and then they sent the specimens off to the people at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who published this paper, a pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin.
Now, it's interesting here.
This is the paper that first said we've got...
The genome of SARS-CoV-2.
They had already uploaded that genome into the gene bank and it was already being made into a vaccine by the time the paper was really published, but they at least, this is the formal publication of their findings.
So these are the people that created the blueprint for our vaccine program.
Our vaccines were given to our military, our border patrol, our trauma surgeons, our...
Firemen, everybody that supports the security infrastructure of America.
I decided to see who these people were.
In the days of paper research studies, you can't do this, but on a computer, when you see a scientific paper, you see all those numbers, you can put your cursor over the patient, over the researcher's name, and it will tell you, okay, Ying Cheng, you know, I'm just picking that one and making this up, but it's the Shanghai Institute of Biology.
It tells you where you're supposed to find these people.
Then I went to all those places, and I couldn't find anybody until I got to Zhengli Shi.
I could find Zhengli Shi.
Shi is the so-called, quote, bat lady of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
So keep in mind here that we got the blueprint for the vaccine for COVID from the bat lady bioweapons researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, not a country that...
Has been our ally in the last I looked.
Before we actually explain what they did to get the viral genome and what they say is an isolation of the virus, let me explain to you bacterial isolation.
When you see the difference, you'll understand the problem.
Bacterial isolation is easy.
Why?
Because we can see bacterial colonies.
We know what's going on.
We can see bacteria under a microscope and we can see it in the colony.
When I was about 10 years old, my dad taught me how to do this.
And what I did was take a sterile swab stick, like we saw used in COVID, and we put it in the nose, and I smeared it onto a Petri dish like you see on the left of the screen.
And then put it in a warm place, and over a few days, you start having these colonies.
Those are each little round satellite thing there in the Petri dish is this different colony of a different type of bacteria.
You can see the difference because of the different colors.
So you know you're getting...
Bacteria growth, and you know that you're getting different types of bacteria, that this is not a pure isolate.
To make a pure isolate, you have to choose one.
If you were looking for a particular one, you would kind of go by the color.
To isolate it, then what you would do is take a sterile little metal transfer device, little spatula thing.
You pick out whatever colony you want.
If you wanted, for example, to look for serratia marcescens, you might pick up the bacteria colony that are pink there.
But in any case, let's just say they took the middle colony, that little greenish thing, and they took a very small sample of that in a sterile way and they transferred it to another sterile plate, smeared it around, and then it grows out colonies that are all one color because now you've got probably a pure isolate of that one type of bacteria, whatever it is.
And then you can take that bacteria and you can put it under the microscope and you can look at it and see that it's pure.
That's how you isolate bacteria.
Here's what...
Was done to, quote, get the genome of SARS-CoV-2.
There were seven patients with severe pneumonia.
One person had a bronchoalveolar lung sample.
That's where they actually put down tube into your lung and suck out some fluid so they can have a really good deep sample in the lung.
Other people, they can just swab their secretions out of their nose and mouth.
But they took these tests and they sent them to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
They used primers, which is the same.
That's what the PCR test is based on.
They picked the testing because obviously we didn't have a COVID test at that point.
They picked the primers because they thought it would be like the old SARS of 2014. So they picked what they call CoV primers.
That isn't a really pure scientific tale right there.
But in any case, they took these primers and they found five people to test positive for CoV PCR. So then they took, one of them was the one with broncholvular lung fluid.
They collected that and they sent it for metagenomic analysis.
Now this is where it gets really dense.
In metagenomic analysis, they put in, they use a bunch of these primers to test the specimen.
They put it in this thing called the aluminized sequencer.
So in this case, it generated from that one guy 56,565,928 sequences that were, they call them reads, up to 150 base pairs long.
So that's a lot of pieces.
Now, then they took those and they put them into a computer.
At this point, it's all computer analysis.
They put it in a computer, and they used what's called the MegaHit program, and it found duplicates, and it found ways of combining two into a larger piece, or three into a larger piece.
By the time they did that, left them with 10 million larger pieces, and when they filtered these out by checking for human genomic...
Parts in there, it left 1,582 pieces.
I don't know how they actually checked for the human parts, but I think the human genomics, I think they just compared it to known Homo sapiens genetics in the gene bank.
So at that point, they kept these 1,378 sequences.
They take a reference sequence.
And they try and put these pieces to match them and to align them, meaning finds out where it can be next to each other on this reference sequence.
Where did they get the reference sequence?
They had to start with something that they believed to be a virus.
When they got done doing that, and they call it by de novo assembly, okay, that means by new assembly, and targeted PCR, meaning choosing the PCR well, they obtained...
A genome of SARS-CoV-2 that was 29,891 bases.
And that's the genetic extension number.
So it's all computer generated after you test the lung fluid with these things.
All of the templates, this is what Stefan Lanca points out.
And let me back up.
This is what, when I talk about the reference sequence, that's a template.
All of the templates with which new strands of genetic material were theoretically computationally generated were themselves theoretically computationally generated and did not originate from a virus.
That's the important point.
Let's look at a real-world analogy.
Okay.
Suppose you're a great puzzle maker, and I put 57 million pieces onto your desk and say, there's a puzzle in there we've never seen before.
Put it together.
The question is, could you do it?
The answer is no.
Even if I tell you, you might ask, well, where's the picture?
Well, we don't have a picture.
This is a novel puzzle.
Well, where did you get the pieces?
Well, we're not sure.
They were found on a floor all jumbled together.
They could have come from multiple puzzles, but we don't know for sure.
Do you know how big it is?
Well, we're guessing it's about 30,000 pieces because the last time we put a puzzle together, it was 30,000 pieces.
What shape is it?
Oh, we don't know that.
It's a novel puzzle.
You see how insane this is?
If you can't hypothetically even do it in reality, you can't do it on a computer.
I'm sorry.
That's what Max Keiser calls complexification and crapification.
You lose sight of reality when you make things too complex, and that's what's going on here.
Because, and this is the point, there could be puzzle pieces from different puzzles.
The nucleic acids that they obtained from this testing were not exclusively from previously isolated virus particles.
So they just put this together from goo in the lung.
You've got a lot of stuff in your lung.
Even though it's cleaner than your nose, it's still not a clean place.
You aspirate some food.
There's all sorts of stuff down there.
You could be having tuberculosis or a bacterial infection that we don't know about.
So even the origin of the nucleic acid fragments used to calculate the genome sequences is unclear.
This, to me, is the dinosaur problem.
You know, all my life I grew up, I used to love dinosaurs.
And who doesn't as a kid, you know, hearing all the stories about finding these dinosaur bones and things.
And I used to think they found...
Dinosaur skeletons that were whole and intact.
And then when I grew up and went to biology class, I learned that they found that a lot of them were not whole and intact, that they had to kind of figure out what was missing.
But I still thought they were reproducible, that they were mostly intact.
It turns out there's only one dinosaur in the whole history of this thing for which a complete skeleton...
Has ever been found, and that's the Scalidosaurus.
Really, only one.
Everything else is just parts.
At some point, and look at the weird shape of Tyrannosaurus rex.
Is that really something you think that nature would produce?
Maybe.
But I will say even the Scalatosaurus skeleton that was whole was left in the basement of the British Museum or something for decades and not studied.
And that was what we would say in our homicide detection mode, that that's not a good chain of evidence.
And this is the dinosaur problem of viruses.
They didn't find a genome.
They found millions of small pieces.
And from millions of very short sequences, they assembled a long strand of genome using complex computational and statistical methods.
This process is called alignment.
When you get done...
Again, you don't have true isolation of a virus.
What you have is what they call an in-silico genome, meaning in silico, on computer, or a consensus genome.
Because I think at the very end, they had a million options, and they had to choose.
They had to fill in some holes.
They had to decide what should be used to fill in certain holes.
And again, they were doing it based on this template.
And they also had to decide then which final genome they were going to...
And that's why it's called a consensus genome.
Here's from Lanka.
He says, Virologists have never performed and documented an alignment using equally short nucleic acids from controlled experiments.
In other words, if you give the same PCR results to three different scientific groups, can they reproduce it, even just from the technical computer aspect?
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype, which is then declared to be the complete genome of a new virus.
In this process of theoretical construction of the viral DNA, those sequences that don't fit are smoothed out and missing ones are added.
That's what I just showed you.
Thus, a DNA sequence is invented which doesn't exist in reality and which has never been discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.
And this is really like finding parts scattered over the world of human skeletons from ancient times that don't all fit together and have had revisions over time because they weren't right.
And then there's consensus about voting on this.
One of my very favorite lectures on this was by Michael Crichton at Caltech in, I think it was 2003. Michael Crichton, as in Dr. Michael Crichton of Harvard Medical School.
Anyway, the title of the talk was Aliens Cause Global Warming.
And this is what he's talking about when you vote on scientific truth.
Quote, I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
It is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agree on something or other, reach for your wallet because you're being had.
Let's be clear, the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics, science on the other.
Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
This is what's lacking in this whole viral search for the genome.
As Stefan Lanca says, the basic insight is that these manipulations simply do not correspond to any complete or known genetic material of a virus.
These are the steps that should have been taken for viral proof, according to him.
And this is based on Cox postulates and general scientific integrity.
First, you would take the lung fluid from a sick person and you would pass it through filters to exclude all larger molecules.
Then you would do a density gradient centrifuge to find things of the same weight and density.
You would visualize the virus under a microscope and take a photo.
Now, that's assuming that you could see them at light microscopic levels, which we can't, and that's a problem.
Then you characterize it as a unique biochemical structure.
Then you sequence its genome and determine its protein's molecular components.
You transfer the purified virus into a new host and cause the disease seen in the virus source.
That was not done.
Basically, they took the lung fluid.
They did go through a gradient centrifuge.
They didn't do the next two steps.
They can't tell you what they ended up with.
was actually a quote virus.
No.
This is interesting.
This is from an anonymous guy, a mathematician in Hamburg.
I'm sure that Blanca is dealing with him.
What he did was see if he could do a controlled study by reproducing their alignment, meaning he didn't have to go back.
He's a mathematician.
He's not a physician.
He didn't go back and resample the patients or anything.
He didn't look at the actual biology and electron microscopy.
What he did was he said, if you think you can put together this virus from the pieces you got from the PCR, then I will take those.
Those short segments.
And I will do a re-transcript sequencing.
He'll just put them through the process again and see if he comes out with the same answer.
This is what he says.
Total RNA is often extracted from patient samples, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, or throat nose swabs and sequenced.
Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.
As I showed you, you have lots of other things in your nose other than viruses.
And then what he did was he took the same numbers, he took them out of the published sequence data with the BioProject.
This is the original gene sequence, and he repeated the de novo assembly with MEGAHIT and showed that the published results could not be reproduced.
Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation.
That's another point that Carey Mullis makes, that this test is so sensitive that if you mistakenly overheat or underheat, if you just don't do it perfectly, you can have a false test.
You can end up with false findings.
That's why this test was never made to do this.
It was made to look at known things and amplify them into bigger quantities.
This is an unknown, and you're trying to discern what's in it, and you can't do it this way.
Here's the other...
Then he concluded, the mathematician, he said, we have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.
Duh.
Of course, because you're taking it from lung goobers and nose swabs and things that have lots of cellular debris in it.
Your lung has lots of cellular debris down there, even when you do a bronchoalveolar lung fluid.
Now, you can say that you centrifuge that out.
It doesn't mean you centrifuged out all the submicroscopic components.
So, in summary here, if it's not reproducible, then it's not science.
And if it's not isolated, they took the information from multiple unknown sources, and again, it's not scientifically valid.
So they have not proven the existence.
of SARS-CoV-2.
And keep in mind, it was never found in the wild, only in a lab, in a computer algorithm, in spite of all the pretty pictures and what appears to be highly technical, complicated science.
So to summarize parts two and three, the trial of Stefan-Lanka may have been one on a technicality, but during the trial, the authorities actually admitted they did not have the Proof of measles virus, and they were defining a virus as something very different.
Furthermore, no virus can be demonstrated outside of a laboratory.
It's all based on computer algorithms and computation.
There are basic methodologic flaws that were uncovered at trial that invalidated the claims of there being a virus, most notably that there were no controls done.
That's a huge methodologic problem that is at the heart of good science.
SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated, but was created from very small bits of genetic sequences which came from a variety of unknown sources, including basic human anatomy.
The technique of alignment, which is the computational analysis of PCR-generated genetic segments, yields results that cannot be duplicated independently.
So you will ask, what do we see on electron microscopy?
How can this all be false?
And that's what we will discuss in Part 4, Light Microscopy vs.
Electron Microscopy and what are the issues.
Thank you for joining me and I hope that you will appreciate these lectures and that you will go to TheMedicalRebel.com and join our podcast, look at our shop, help support the efforts here.
▲
Export Selection