The flu renamed every two years is still the flu

Virus theory is all complete bullshit anyway.

Viral disease is poisoning. Corona started with industrial pollution and 5g rollout in Wuhan. Spanish flu was vaccination and aspirin poisoning

Polio was DDT poisoning Flu is air pollution (inc emf) and winter vit d deficiency Meningitis is drug poisoning

Smallpox was a mild easily curable non contagious sanitary disease They changed meaning of virus from poison to germ to create fear and hence vaccination They then vanished toxicology They then vanished the vitamin c cure for all viral disease since 1930s which would have destroyed vaccination

No virus has ever been isolated. “Viruses have never been isolated, none, there is no measles virus” — Dr Robert Young


There is no such thing as a virus.

Paul Erlich and Robert Koch and some others made up the theory in the late 1800s.



All the modern chemical giants were just getting started mid century, around the time that germ theory was taking off.

When people were getting sick and dying from exposure to the new chemical poisons, they needed a way to divert attention. They tried to claim these illnesses were infections, but could find no infectious agent under the microscopes. So they made up viruses.

They were hypothesized to be little tiny bugs too small to see. What is telling is, the word virus means liquid poison.

It was not until the late 1930s that they invented the electron microscope and could see really small things, things the size of small snips of dna floating around in the lab juice. When they found these things they just pointed at them and said, “Ah hah! We’ve found what we were looking for.” Which is ridiculous because they did not know anything at all about what they had just found, what it was, where it came from, what it did.

In order to prepare a specimen for the electron microscope, you have to kill it. So when they are looking at “viruses” they are looking at cellular debris from cells that have been poisoned.

How do they find a virus? They take tissue, blood, or whatever, culture it in a lab, then poison it so the cells die and become just a pile of goo. They then make the electron microscope slide and look at the gunk on the slide. In all that gunk are little snips of dna. And there you have your virus.

A virus is a piece of poisoned, lab grown dna.

When they say, “viral illness” what they mean is poisoning. If you have a viral illness, you have been poisoned and your body is cleaning itself out.

What else besides things we ingest or inject can destroy our cells and make us ill, causing little snips of dna to show up in lab cell cultures? Electromagnetic radiation.

What is more, they are identifying this virus via pcr testing (polymerase chain reaction testing). They are identifying tiny little fragments of the dna code of these snips. They are not sequencing the entire thing in each patient.

So all these people are coming down with illnesses that cause the destruction of their cells and it is being called a viral illness because they find bits of dna in the resultant dead tissues.

They are finding the results of what they do and thinking it is the cause of the illness. They are making people sick, then blaming something they find as a result of their actions.

Elliott Freed



Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist and molecular biologist, is internationally mostly known as an “AIDS dissident” (and maybe “gentechnology dissident”) who has been questioning the very existence of “HIV” since 1994. In the past years, however, he stumbled over a breathtaking fact: Not even ONE of the (medically relevant) viruses has ever been isolated; there is no proof of their existence. Actually, Dr. Lanka already stated three years ago, in the almost “legendary” Zenger´s interview:

“So, for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses – as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous – in fact do not exist at all.”

So he thoroughly read the literature on those “other viruses” again, and after he could still not find any paper which would provide the evidence, he encouraged people not to BELIEVE him but to ask the institutes and authorities themselves. This has actually eventuated, mostly initiated by mothers. The responses were revealing. In September 2001 the German book “Impfen – Völkermord im dritten Jahrtausend?” (Vaccination – Genocide in the third millennium?) by Stefan Lanka and Karl Krafeld was published in which they state that there is still no proof of any (medically relevant) virus.

This movement (klein-klein-aktion ~ many little actions/steps) has a German website: which I have taken (and translated) all the following texts from.

For almost one year we have been asking authorities, politicians and medical institutes for the scientific evidence for the existence of such viruses that are said to cause disease and therefore require “immunization”. After almost one year we have not received even one concrete answer which provides evidence for the existence of those “vaccine-preventable viruses”. The conclusion is inevitable that our children are still vaccinated on the basis of scientific standards of the 18th and 19th century. In the 19th century Robert Koch demanded in his generally accepted postulates evidence of the virus in order to prove infection; at Koch´s time this evidence couldn´t be achieved directly by visualization and characterization of the viruses, because adequate technology wasn´t available at that time. Methods of modern medicine have profoundly changed over the past 60 years, in particular by the invention of the electron microscope, yet all these viruses we get immunised against have still never been re-examined using this technology?

We showed to Dr. Lanka a number of images and explanations we were pointed to and that were said to show – respectively describe (characterise) viruses. Here are his summarising comments:

“All these photos have in common that they, respectively the authors, can´t claim that they represent a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated. Such original publications are cited nowhere.

Indeed, in the entire scientific medical literature there´s not even one publication, where the fulfillment of Koch´s first postulate is even claimed for such viruses. This means that there is no proof that the viruses held responsible for these diseases have been isolated from humans afflicted by them. Nevertheless, this is precisely what they publicly claim.


Now, regarding the photos submitted:

  1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the (art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.
  2. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox (Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found. Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and inter-cellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind – which are consistently the same size and same shape – they differ in size and shape and therefore can´t have been isolated.
  3. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they´re isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans.

These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2) resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the electron microscope.

  1. The “isolated” polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the “viruses” in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those “isolated” viruses, although “isolation” is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.
  2. The photo of the hepatitis B “viruses” does not show isolated structures, but – as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, round and also crystal structures accrue – depending on the condition of the blood sample – as a consequence .

In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have contributed to this fraud knowingly or only out of gross negligence, I don´t know. Everyone who starts researching the medical literature, will quickly encounter statements and references that Koch´s first postulate can´t be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben, 1997 [“A short history of the microbes”]; editor: Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could overlook that, remains a riddle.

Could it be that the term “Contagium” = “Gift” (poison/toxin) = “Virus” from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell components which were named “viruses” since the electron microscope was introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the “disease causing viruses” have often been described, yet have never been isolated? And then they were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985 following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations? The copies in the textbooks show only homogenous structures within cells and nothing that looks like something which has been isolated. The biochemical characterization, which is crucial, is completely lacking.

Robert Koch and colleagues, Prof. Rush, Prof. Max von Pettenkofer, Prof. Virchow have shown, for instance by experiments and by observation of the Henle-Koch´s rules that by transmission of bacteria, the supposed ‘contagium vivum’, it was not possible to cause the same disease. So Robert Koch modified (weakened) the 3rd postulate of his teacher, the German anatomist Henle, in that the generation of a similar symptom in animal experiments was now considered sufficient to prove the hypothesis of disease causation by infectious bacteria. (See Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben).

So it does not surprise me that Prof. Alfred Fischer writes in his book “Vorlesungen über Bakterien” (“[academic] lectures on bacteria”) from 1897 (!): “As is true for any infectious disease – the fact that it does not only take the addition of the bacteria (for disease to occur) but also the unknown something of individual predisposition, goes without saying.”

Stefan Lanka –