All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:05:55
The Viral Delusion Episode Three: 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 had a lot they could find a lot of people who had the bacteria in their tissues who were totally fine.
Anyways, so they they had a bunch of illnesses which they could see a bacteria, and then they had illnesses in a 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 supername, 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 uh 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.
So they get stuff from somebody with polio, they try 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 that 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 the how to make virus cells sick yet.
There's 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 uh a child who had polio, they took some of their spinal tissue, ground it up in some water, filtered it, so that they got rid of the like the cellular stuff.
So they have just basically ground-up liquid diseased uh 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 uh 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 monkey and somebody wants to inject disease spinal cord into directly into your brain, your best bet is to run.
Because it's a good chance that nothing good will come out of that.
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 in the bony you know hole, and then you die.
So you would think that if you're going to inject like a half a cup of diseased brain, 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 polios have caused by a virus.
And you read that and you think, what the heck?
Like, that's not, that's just nuts.
Like, that's just nuts.
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 a 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 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 uh 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 gonna 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.
Even you don't even really learn that, but you just learn that it's a virus, and you assume that somebody someday 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, you know, for evidence or proof.
That is the proof.
Once that becomes sort of the dogma, you can't say uh, I don't think this is a virus.
I'm uh orthodox doctor, and I always thought polio as a classic infectious disease, which is which is uh 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 polio virus that causes disease in the animal.
Instead, the assumption that polio is transmissible goes back to experiments on Landsteiner, but they did again, they did like that, you'll say intraterebral inoculation.
And that's really for me, it's not a proof for a transmissible virus.
That's as we know now, it's an uh allergic reaction against thorough proteins when you inject foreign protein into the brain.
They 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 experience or know what they were doing, and so they didn't take precautions, and they basically doused everything with this stuff.
And they did this, of course, in the spring.
And 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, etc.
etc.
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 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 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 uh carbon tetrachloride in order to uh dissolve the cotton seed oil out of the cotton seed, 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 has 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.
Now people start talking about polio itself and the iron line disease, the permanent disease, and 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.
When we didn't know that it's snow and toxin, we didn't know that at that time.
There are studies that show that uh DD causes uh disintegration of the anterior horn, which is the definition of uh infantile paralysis, polio.
And uh they did studies on uh animals.
They also found that around 1951 that uh the calves of cattle that were grazing on DDT uh doused fields on grass that had DDT in it, that the calves were dying of uh neurological symptoms similar to polio.
So that was one of the things that uh brought it 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 veterinaire medicine and uh in the animal medicine um polio the the paralyzed coughs were uh suggested to be cost by the high DET 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 uh one of my one of the uh classmates in grade school, she was on crutches and she had polio and uh so it was a big deal in my mind, and then 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 was pretty obvious.
You know, 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 would run around, and sometimes you have your bicycle, and he'd ride around in the midst in in the bubblegum mist.
You know, it was 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 horde cells of the nervous system.
And every place where you see polio outbreaks has one of those two as you know, something that happened, like they go to India and they spray DDT or some you know, some you know, organophosphate insecticide.
Next thing you know, they have a polio outbreak.
You just you just can't look uh 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 uh I found that other people had actually already believed this, which was uh mobs, uh Biskin and Scobie, these three people who are never referenced.
There's no references to them.
But I yeah, can you tell us about who who Biskin was and and then yeah, what what you found that he was saying and how take us through that?
Well, his specialty was uh hormones, the hormone system, you know, and he had he was an MD, and um he's deceased now, but he started writing in 1949.
He had an article published in a Israeli medical journal, the DDT he thought was the cause of the polio epidemic.
And uh then he wrote some other articles in uh PDA pediatric uh journals, and then another, and he wrote these, he wrote uh some of these with a a co-author named Mobbs, and uh then there was another author I found named Scope.
Who's that?
Uh Ralph Scobie.
And he is more rigorous in going in detail, a lot of detail.
Uh the thing about Biskin is that he just had this uh sense of nobility and honesty, you know, and uh his logic and the way he uh wrote was really beautiful,
but but Scope was uh 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 prioritized, and how any toxicological view of polio was being subverted with tons of references, you know, so that was it.
There's many potential causes or suspect causes uh over the centuries for for polio uh arsenic, I have grass for arsenic, grass for lead, uh 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 indicates them.
The crucial experiment was not done in polio.
But they got instead they found a 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 wrong.
Well, 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 this paralysis.
that was not done.
When the electron microscope was invented in the late 20s, The people in this area of research, they said, Oh, this is a great tool.
Now we're gonna look and maybe we can find something that we couldn't see with the previous microscopes.
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 Andrews came along, and when they made this polio vaccine that was a commercial success.
He said, Look, I'm not using bacteria, but I use tissue, flattened 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 syra to feed them, and it's fully full with microbes with nucleic acid of all wise kind of 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 experiment.
They had the same amount of proteins but sterilized, you know, and to see what's happened.
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 this or that kind of diseases, and therefore they were fooling themselves and fooling the public.
And what happened that in this very paper, first June 54, John Franklin Anderson and his co-author, they're writing, take care about this preliminary findings, because uh sometimes our cultures dying, even if you do nothing with them.
So it can be that an unknown virus is inside or unknown factors, and we so you mean be careful, not 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 an ol another idea out of the old viology on poliovirus.
That the virus should not be specific to his tissues.
And this Nobel Prize made him blind.
And this speculative paper of first June 54 became in the same moment he received the Nobel Prize, he it became a scientific fact which never ever is possible to question.
I mean, at the Nobel Prize, it's more rough in the field of science than the words of hundred pulpes together.
Definitely.
If you receive the Nobel Prize, that's 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 culture 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 human being in an animal or in a liquid in sperm in blood, uh you know, nowhere.
All photographs shown and claimed those are particles, are way highly manipulated structures of dying cells in the test tube.
About eight months after my article on polio was published, uh a biochemist, uh Howard Ernavitz, uh looked into the idea of polio isolation, he found the famous studies claiming to have isolated poliovirus were actually false.
That uh when you if you read the the studies that they uh didn't do much uh you know, their idea of what they call an isolation of poliovirus was actually um not much more than putting some feces uh in water and blend and then uh putting that into a centrifuge to separate the clear liquid from the feces.
And this clear liquid they declared was uh a virus isolated virus, you know.
So that that's obviously patently false, and he discovered that.
He went through several studies.
Well, he 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 they can't isolate viruses.
They can they can look at mixtures which and they can claim that they have a vi a virus isolated there, but there the only thing they did in terms of isolation is redefine 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 is find a mixture where 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 was got the Nobel Prize for discovering how to isolate a virus.
And it was done with measles.
So they say they swab the throat and immerse 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.
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 genomycin, 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 genomycin 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 not 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, 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 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 developing the 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 you know 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, gentomycin, and amphotericin B, which are all specifically toxic to the kidneys.
They starve the culture, and then they add other biological biological materials like bovine calf serum, like a fetal bovine serum rather, like from you know 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 apopotic 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 a virus.
So it's very convenient.
It just doesn't come close to proving what they they say it does.
And so the fact that Enders helped manufacture this polio vaccine and created this technique, you know, this cult tissue culture experiment, you know, the so-called virus isolation, it's not just the way to you know discover a new virus, it's also the way to manufacture a new vaccine.
So this is a commercial experiment, right?
Now they've changed that paradigm.
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 it 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 SOC 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 um and when they were actually utilized, because like the SOC vaccine, only a very small number of people got it.
Um, 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 it.
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, it even just an injection, it was uh extremely unusual that anyone would be subjected to an injection, it was seen you know as um 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 um 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 first really successful vaccine commercially, even though it actually had nothing to do with um with stopping polio.
It there was 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 what I mean.
It's a lot.
And the you know, both the normal virology community and the sort of alternative community is 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, um, the same one that is in every single paper that claims virus isolation.
There's no 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 virus.
Now, if you could take any other culture, like human cells or chick embryo cells or whatever, and try that, and that's how they prove that the virus exists, and that's what they call isolation, and that's how they prove that it kills tissue.
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 proteins, another vaccine, but in the end they are doing exactly the same.
Exactly the protocol of endos.
Now, somebody could say, well, but 63 years later, surely we can distinguish the breakdown of like our tissue or monkey kidney tissue from an exogenous virus, right?
So here's an article that was in viruses May 2020.
They're talking about now they have a better name for just debris from coming from the breakdown of our tissues.
They call it extracellular vesicles and exosomes.
That but that means when we get poisoned or sick, uh then we break down into these particles, and the 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.
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 snap from measles or COVID patient, mix it with bovine serum, etcetera, 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 a breakdown 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 d 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 it's it's science.
We are just following the things.
But the first duty of a scientist, and to claim that something is s scientific, it's to question it.
And to question it and yourself.
That's a written duty.
And because uh and only if you cannot falsificate 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 uh by training a clinical psychologist and a historian of science.
I've did a PhD in clinical psychology in Basel and a PhD in history and theory of science in Vienna.
And uh history of science is kind of my scientific hobby and has been all the time after how do the social um 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 flower pots standing on the balcony.
But scientific facts are not flower pots 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 uh of justice in Germany.
Uh she was very often to my village, Lang.
And so she uh rang me later, and she still was member of the parliament and uh in the backcene influential you know person.
People were listening to her, and she asked me if I have uh uh new proof.
Uh you know, disproofing uh the existence of measle virus because there were all the rumors that we need obligation to get vaccinated against Misel, which matualized already by the end of last year.
And she asked me if I have proofs of that the Robert Koch Institute has no proof.
And therefore easy, I said, Look, I am offering 100,000 euro 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 kind of viruses causing disease.
That's their duty.
And I knew they have no publication on a measle virus.
They 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 uh 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 uh 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 measle 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, uh, people are being vaccinated against it.
So why would you want to 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 I asked him what happened, and then he said uh one of the 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 uh is known by now is in the first trial he lost, so he didn't pay the money.
The specialist, the courts specialist asked by the court to examine those six papers.
He said none of them have a proof for the for existence of a virus, but he said arguments taken out and put together basically together uh 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 uh vindicated.
And the the judge said, Well, there has not been produced a definitive proof of a measles virus.
What happened?
Uh there was a new judge in from the three, and she was directly coming from university after her PhD, and she was thinking logically.
She asked him, uh Dr. Lanka is questioning that there 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 X. So they cheated.
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 a scientific papers, all of them, six, uh, because they are only scientific if control experiments carried out.
And he said, and it was still, it's 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 uh 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.
And I talked to Lanka and said, Well, how can that be?
Why 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 uh to see a professor of virology of infectiology in Leipzig, who is really smart person, and talked at length to her, and she confirmed there is not really a very definitive proof of that.
It's it's this one-dimensional uh fear mongering model.
So um the one-dimensional model, uh, this is also far from reality that there's um one disease and uh one cause and only one possibility to fight it.
So you have one disease and the only causes of the virus, and then um everything are the possible causes excluded, and um and then uh you can only fight it with uh drugs and vaccines,
so uh then you have this fear mongering you need it to uh to make it look very scary, and then the irony of this whole thing is when you get down to so how do you make this particles called a virus, it's uh it's clear.
You starve and poison tissue, and it breaks down into a virus.
Well, it's not a virus, but it's a genetic pieces, which we call misconception called a 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 how do I stay healthy?
What do I you know?
Everybody's telling me to be terrified of coronavirus, they're telling me to be terrified of um AIDS, uh we don't know when a bowl is gonna come next.
I've seen movies with people in these spacesuits worried about Ebola.
How do we what's your take on all of that?
How do people integrate that how do they how do they deal with all this?
Well they think about it.
Let me tell you what from my research on well, let's start with that first.
I 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 uh some people, especially people who are not Americans, they always get a kick when I say this.
I said, 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.
And I did this thing uh for uh John Rappaport on Ebola, and I looked in there and uh all the original papers on Ebola.
There's a classic thing, nobody isolated a virus.
No, no, it's 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, what are the big opal outbreaks happened in a mine, an abandoned mine.
Only the people that went down in their mine came back with this horrible disease, you know.
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 were that eventually became sick, then none of them got sick.
And of course, this mine had been abandoned for a long time.
It was, 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 were 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 you know get them?
Why why was that the the place that they were talking about in the Ebola outbreak?
You know, where are your other examples of an Ebola outbreak, you know?
Where's the little village, you know, where they're spreading this stuff right?
And it was in the midst of one of those interminable wars.
These wars that go, you know, uh this was in the Congo, I believe it was.
I I think that was the kind of the country that we were that we were talking about in this combat.
They had these battles, these wars going on all the time.
Congo is one of the richest resource countries in Africa.
And Africa is loaded with resources.
The West wants those resources.
They want to take them any way they can.
And Papua New Guinea, where I was a peace corps volunteer there, it's an island, uh, 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 they have uh minerals and all sorts of stuff.
Uh uh great place.
The healthiest people I've ever met in my life.
Absolutely healthiest people I've met in my life, were these Papua New Guineans.
Uh, this should be important for people.
Glad I even reminded myself about this.
Uh I was teaching high school there, and uh I noticed nobody's wearing glasses.
No students.
I went to the headmaster one day and I said, I guess the students don't they aren't students wearing glasses because they're just too poor.
He said, No, they don't need them.
In fact, nobody needed glasses.
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 uh they knew how to take care of themselves.
I have a feeling that the uh the people on this continent before the European showed up, I I know what I read from some of the uh what the missionaries wrote about the um the the North American Indians.
I they weren't the Spaniards, they might have been the British uh people that wrote about them.
I have a feeling that the North American Indians were like the Papua New Guineas, extremely healthy people, because that's what the they wrote about them about how healthy and strong and sturdy these people were, you know.
This is this is really what I want to try to capture and and it's so obvious, but I want to rem kind of remind people uh that we are being sold a vision where health is delivered to you by technology.
Yeah, yeah, that's for sure.
I know how how do we exist on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years before the white short the white jacketed people showed up, you know.
Oh, it w yeah, I mean I almost accept nothing that's become mainstream about health.
Almost nothing anymore.
The whole thing cooked up again in uh the the BSE time when uh people thought it might be possible that the the metcow disease.
But uh indeed it was also in uh intoxication of the cut of the cow was the cause of Metcal disease because they got they changed the law in Great Britain that uh the farmers should do higher dosage of this uh phosphate on the neck of the of the cows because of the water fly,
which was a disease which uh damaged uh the the cows and uh the milk wasn't good enough, so they they said to what the farmers have to do some more phosphate on the necks, and phosphorate is uh phosphorus, and if you get much enough to your nervous system, then you get this problems with your excellence, and you get the normal pati, and that's the true uh cause of met cow disease.
And well, they noticed that because they had investigations and they had a commission there, and they know about the problem of phosphate, and they changed the law.
So they said, but it might be possible that there's connection.
And since they have the lower dose again, the medcal disease is not more 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 the 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 living conditions, better living conditions, war, poverty, 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.
It's the cornerstone of Western medical practice.
Pharma, drugs, injections, surgery.
You know, this is not the first time with polio that the entire medical community has mistaken an 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.
Of course, everybody thought they were spreading one thing to it 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 Berry Berry and Palegra for you know decades, if not centuries, these simple nutrient deficiencies, you know.
When I I'm not an expert on this, but one of them is if you don't soak your corn properly, right?
Native people they they soaked corn and even put ashes in it, and it's called mixtilization 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're died of, I think pallagra or berry berry, one of the two, because the one of the B vitamins is not uh available and then you get sick.
And because it happened in families, right, because this family ate a lot of corn and their family ate potatoes and they didn't get sick.
And so they said it must must be something spreading in the family.
That's exactly the problem with using epidemiology to determine causation.
It's just really everybody admits it's inappropriate.
I just wanted to add something 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, that you need the modern man to improve it.
That's the idea behind Ronsanto and so many other things and industries, and 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 is the solution.
So they lost so they they they do not think anymore and the possibility that there can be other solutions and solutions that the modern technology is not the solution, is maybe even causing the problems we are trying to solve.
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 I get it, so let's investigate whether it's a virus.
We did, it's not.
Move on.
You know, I I don't need it any more stories.
▲
Export Selection