英訳：「Dismantling the Virus-Theory」（PDF）

邦訳：「ウイルス理論の解体」（PDF）

The “measles virus” as an example

Why should we doubt the existence of viruses? What are viruses and what are they not? How are viruses being scientifically demonstrated to exist?

Scientists  must  question  everything  and  especially what  they  love  the  most,  i.e.  their  own  discoveries and ideas. This basic rule of scientific research helps avoid erroneous developments and reveals the ones that  already  exist.  Also,  we  must  all  be  allowed  to question the status quo, otherwise we would live in a dictatorship. Moreover, science cannot be limited to a selected number of institutions and experts. Science can and must be conducted by anyone who has the necessary knowledge and the appropriate methods.

Science can be considered science only if its claims are verifiable, reproducible and if they allow predictions.
Science also needs external control, because, as we will see, a part of the medical sciences has lost touch with reality for quite some time. Anyone who has knowledge of biology and the genesis of life, of the development and functions of the tissue, of the body  and  of  the  brain,  will  automatically  question the assumptions about viruses.

In  the  reality  of  the  body  and  of  its  mechanisms, there  is  no  place  for  hypothetical  malignant  processes. All biological processes, including those that can end in suffering, pain and death, are originally meant to be useful.

A  different  approach  to  the  virus  phenomenon  is possible and necessary: any layman with some background  knowledge  reading  scientific  papers  about pathogenic viruses can realize that such viruses do not exist and what is being described are only typical components and characteristics of cells. This background knowledge will be provided in this article.

The present notion of a virus is based on the ancient ideas that all diseases were caused by poisons (“toxins”) and that people would regain their health by producing “antitoxins” as an “antidote”. Indeed, a few diseases are caused by poisons. The subsequent idea, that the body can restore its health by producing  or  being  given  “antidotes”,  was  born  when  it was observed that people survived bigger amounts of  poison  (such  as  alcohol)  when  their  body  was trained  by  consuming  slowly  increasing  amounts of that poison. However, in reality there are no antidotes, instead the body produces enzymes, which neutralize and eliminate the poisons (alcohol).

In 1858, Rudof Virchow, the founder of modern medicine, plagiarized the findings of other scientists, suppressed their essential discoveries and thus a false view on the cause of diseases was born and imposed as a dogma, which is in fact still in effect to date. According to this dogma, all diseases supposedly originate  inside  the  cells.[1]   Virchow’s  cellular  pathology re-introduced into medicine the ancient and refuted the humoral doctrine and claimed that diseases develop from pathogenic poisons (in Latin: virus).

The search for these pathogenic poisons remains to date fruitless, however, when bacteria were discovered, it was assumed that they were producing the  pathogenic  poisons.  This  supposition,  called “the germ theory”, was immediately accepted and remains  very  successful  up  to  the  present  time. This  theory  is  so  successful  that  the  majority  of the people are still not aware of the fact that the so-called  bacterial  toxins  are  actually  normal  enzymes,  which  either  cannot  appear  in  a  human being, or, if they do, they never appear in such an amount as to make them dangerous.

Then it was discovered that, when they slowly begin to die, bacteria create tiny, apparently lifeless forms of survival, the so-called spores. It was then suspected  that  these  spores  were  toxic  and  that they  were  the  so-called  pathogenic  poisons.  This was then refuted, since the spores are rapidly developing  into  bacteria  when  their  vital  resources are being restored. When scientists in the laboratory observed that the weak, highly inbred bacteria perished very quickly while turning into much smaller structures than the spores, it was first believed that the bacteria were being killed by the alleged pathogenic poisons, called viruses, and that the viruses were thereby replicating.

Due  to  the  belief  that  these  -at  the  time  of  their discovery still invisible- structures were killing the bacteria, they were called phages/bacteriophages, “eaters of bacteria”. Only later it was determined that  merely  highly  inbred  and  therefore  almost non-viable bacteria can be made to turn into phages,  or  bacteria  which  are  being  destroyed  so  fast that they do not have time to form spores.

The introduction of the electron microscopy led to the discovery of the structures resulting from the transformation  of  bacteria  when  these  were  suddenly dying or when the metabolism of the highly inbred germs was overwhelmed by processes triggered by the adding of “phages”. It was also discovered that there are hundreds of types of different-looking “phages”. The discovery of phages, the so-called bacterial “viruses”, reinforced the wrong assumption and the belief that there were human and animal viruses that looked the same and had the same structure. This is not and cannot be the case, for several different reasons.

After  introducing  chemical  examination  techniques in biology, it was discovered that there are thousands of types of phages and that phages of one type always have the same structure. They consist of a particular molecule, made of nucleic acid, which  is  covered  in  a  shell  of  proteins  of  a  given number and composition. It was only later discovered that merely the bacteria which had been highly  inbred  in  the  test  tube  could  turn  into  phages themselves, by contact with phages, but this never applied to natural bacteria or bacteria which had just been isolated from their natural environment. In this process, it was discovered that these “bacterial viruses” actually serve to provide other bacteria with important molecules and proteins, and that  the  bacteria  themselves  emerged  from  such structures.

Before  it  could  be  established  that  the  “bacterial  viruses”  cannot  kill  natural  bacteria,  but  they are instead helping them to live and that bacteria themselves  emerge  from  such  structures,  these “phages” were already used as models for the alleged human and animal viruses. It was assumed that the human and animal viruses looked like the “phages”,  were  allegedly  killing  cells  and  thereby causing diseases, while at the same time producing new disease poisons and in this way transmitting the diseases. To date, many new or apparently new diseases have been attributed to viruses if their origin  is  unknown  or  not  acknowledged.  This  reflex found an apparent confirmation in the discovery of the “bacterial viruses”.

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  theories  of  fight and infection were accepted and highly praised by a majority of the specialists only if and when the countries  or  regions  where  they  lived  were  also suffering from war and adversity. In times of peace, other  concepts  dominated  the  world  of  science. [2] It is very important to note that the theory of infection – starting from Germany – has only been globalized through the third Reich, when the Jewish researchers, most of which had opposed and refuted the politically exploited theories of infection, were removed from their positions.[3]   

The  existence  of  phages  can  be  proved  rapidly. First  step:  their  presence  is  confirmed  through an effect, namely the transformation of bacteria into phages, and also through an electron micrograph of those phages. The control experiments show that phages do not appear if bacteria do not change  or  if  bacteria  randomly  start  decomposing due to extrinsic sudden annihilation, without forming phages.

Second  step:  the  liquid  containing  the  phages is  concentrated  and  applied  on  another  liquid, which has a high concentration at the bottom of the test tube and a low concentration at the top of  the  test  tube.  The  test  tube  with  the  phages  is  then  powerfully  spun  (centrifuged)  and  all the particles gather according to their mass and weight to the place of their own density. The density is the ratio of weight (mass) per unit of volume, expressed as Kg/l or g/mg, respectively. That is why this concentration and purification step for particles with the same density is called density gradient centrifugation.

The layer where many particles of the same density  gather  becomes  “cloudy”,  which  is  called  a “band”.
This step is being documented, then the particles concentrated, purified and sedimented in  a  “band”  are  removed  with  a  syringe  needle. The  extracted  concentrated  amount  of  particles is  called  an  isolate.  
A  fast  and  simple  electron micrograph  will  confirm  the  presence  of  phages in the isolate, which at the same time is an indication for the purity of the isolate, if the micrograph  shows  no  other  particles  but  the  phages. The  appearance  and  the  diameter  of  the  phages  will  also  be  established  with  the  help  of  this micrograph.  The  control  experiment  performed for this step consists in treating and centrifuging the  liquid  from  bacteria  which  did  not  form  any phages, where no phages appear at the end of the procedure.

After the step of successfully isolating the phages, the decisive biochemical characterization of the phages follows. The biochemical characterization of  their  composition  is  essential  for  identifying the  specific  type  of  phage,  since  different  types of phages often appear to be similar. The isolate obtained  through  the  density  gradient  centrifugation is now divided in two parts. One part is used to determine the size, type and composition of the nucleic acid; in a separate procedure, the other part is used to determine the amount, size and  morphology  of  the  proteins  of  the  phages. Since  the  1970s,  these  tests  have  been  simple standard techniques that are learned by every biology student in his first semesters.

These tests represent the biochemical characterization of the phages. In almost every case, these results have been and are being published in only one publication, since a phage has a very simple structure which is very easy to analyse. The control  experiments  for  these  tests  use  liquid  from bacteria which do not form phages and thus cannot present any biochemical proof. The existence of approximately two thousand different types of phages was scientifically demonstrated this way.

The  “bacteriophages”,  correctly  defined  as  incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria,  have  been  scientifically  isolated,  while the supposed pathogenic viruses have never been observed in humans or animals or in their body fluids  and  have  never  been  isolated  and  subsequently  biochemically  analysed.  To  date,  none of  the  researchers  involved  in  this  kind  of  work seems to have realised this.

The use of the electron microscope and the biochemistry were very slowly returning to normal after 1945 and no one had realised that not one pathogenic  virus  had  ever  been  isolated  in  humans or  animals;  thus,  as  of  1949  researchers  started applying  the  same  idea  used  for  the  (bacterio) phages, in order to replicate the human and animal “viruses”.  John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier, was active in various fraternities after having finished his studies, then he worked as a real estate agent and studied foreign languages for four years before turning to bacterial virology, which fascinated him.

He then simply transferred the ideas and concepts that he learned in this area of research to the supposed pathogenic viruses in humans. With his unscientific experiments and interpretations that he had  never  confirmed  through  negative  controls, Enders brought the entire “viral” infectious medicine to a dead end.
It is important to note at this point  that  Enders,  like  many  infectious  diseases specialists, worked for the U.S. military, which had always been and remains to date a huge victim of the fear of contagion. It was mainly the U.S. military which spread its erroneous belief that besides chemical weapons there were also biological weapons in the form of bacteria and viruses.

In 1949, Enders announced that he had managed to  cultivate  and  grow  the  alleged  polio  virus  in vitro  on  various  tissues.  The  American  expert opinion  believed  everything  immediately.  What Enders  did  was  to  add  fluids  from  patients  with poliomyelitis to tissue cultures which he claimed to  have  had  sterilized,  then  he  alleged  that  the cells were dying because of the virus, that the virus was replicating in this way and that a vaccine could be harvested from the respective culture. At that time, summer polio epidemics (polio = flaccid paralysis) were very frequent during summer and they were believed to be caused by polio viruses. A vaccine was to help eradicate the alleged virus. After the polio vaccine was introduced, the symptoms  were  then  re-diagnosed  among  other things  as  multiple  sclerosis,  flaccid  acute  paralysis,  aseptic  meningitis  etc.  and  later  polio  was claimed to have been eradicated.

During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilised the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn’t take into consideration was that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was killing the  cells.  Instead,  he  interpreted  the  cytopathic effects  as  the  existence  and  the  action  of  polio viruses,  without  ever  having  isolated  a  single  virus and described its biochemistry. The necessary negative  control  experiments,  which  would  have shown that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cells prior to the “infection” in the test tube was killing the cells, have never been performed. However, for this “performance” Enders received the Nobel prize in 1954.

1954 is also the year in which Enders applied and introduced the same technique in order to allegedly replicate the measles virus. As he had been awarded  the  Nobel  prize  for  the  alleged  polio virus the same year, all researchers believed his technique to be scientifically valid. Thus, to date, the  entire  concept  of  measles  has  been  based upon this technique. Thus, the measles vaccines do not contain viruses, but particles of dead monkey kidney tissue or human cancer cells.

To  date,  no  negative  control  experiments  have been done with respect to the so-called measles virus  either,  which  would  have  shown  that  it  is the  laboratory  procedures  that  lead  to  the  cytopathic effects on the cells. Additionally, all claims and  experiments  made  by  Enders  et  al.  and  the subsequent researchers lead to the only objective conclusion  that  in  fact  they  were  observing  and analyzing dying cellular particles and the activity thereof in the test tube, misinterpreting these as particles and characteristics of the alleged measles virus.

The  following  explanations  apply  to  all  the  socalled (human or animal) “pathogenic viruses”.

The  six  papers  provided  by  Dr  Bardens  in  the course of the “measles trial” as proof for the existence of the measles virus describe in a didactically ideal way the various steps of the chain of misinterpretations  up  to  the  belief  in  the  existence of a measles virus.

The first paper was published in 1954 by Enders et al.:  “Propagation  in  tissue  cultures  of  cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles” (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun; 86 (2): 277–286). This publication can be found on the internet, like all the other publications presented at the measles trial.

In  that  experiment,  Enders  et  al.  cut  down  dramatically  on  the  nutrient  solution  and  added cell-destroying  antibiotics  to  the  cell  culture before  introducing  the  allegedly  infected  fluid. The subsequent dying of the cells was then misinterpreted as presence and also isolation of the measles virus. No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects. Enders’ and his colleagues’ blindness can be explained by the fact that he truly wanted to help people, while the virus hysteria was intensifying after the war and during the cold war. It can also be explained by the fact that Enders and many of his colleagues had no idea about medicine and they were competing with the Soviet Union for the development of the first measles vaccine.

Such a pressure for success can also explain why Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being “infected”), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and factors. All these facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded.

The  second  paper  presented  by  the  claimant  in the measles trial was published in 1959 [4]  and, for the  reasons  presented  above,  the  authors  concluded that the technique introduced by Enders was  not  appropriate  for  the  isolation  of  a  virus. This rebuttal is not only NOT being discussed by all the other researchers, but it is being ignored.

In the third paper [5] , the authors photographed typical cellular particles inside the cells and misinterpreted these as measles virus. They did not isolate any virus. For unexplained reasons, they failed to determine and describe the biochemical structure of what they were presenting as a virus in a separate  experiment.  
In  the  short  description  of  the methods used, one can read that the authors did not apply the standard isolation technique for viruses, i.e. the density gradient centrifugation. They simply centrifuged fragments of dead cells at the bottom of a test tube and then, without describing their  biochemical  structure,  they  misinterpreted the cellular debris as viruses. From the way the experiments were performed, one can only conclude that cellular particles were misinterpreted as viruses. We find the same situation in the fourth [6]  and the sixth [7]  publication put forward by the claimant as proof of the existence of a measles virus.

The  fifth  publication [8]   is  a  review  describing  the consensus process as to which nucleic acid molecules from the dead cells would represent the so-called genome of the measles virus. The result is that dozens of researchers teams work with short pieces of cell-specific molecules, after which - following  a  given  model  –  they  put  all  the  pieces together  on  paper.  However,  this  jigsaw  puzzle made  of  so  many  pieces  was  never  scientifically proven to exist as a whole and was never isolated from a virus, for a measles virus has never been seen, neither in humans nor in a test tube. Referring to this publication, the court-appointed expert stated that it described the gold standard, i.e. the entire virus genome. It is obvious that the expert  did  not  read  this  paper,  whose  authors stated that the exact molecular composition and functions of the measles virus genome will have to be the object of further research, which is why they had to rely on other virus models in order to achieve a consensus on the structure and functions of the measles virus genome.

The  easiest  thing  for  anyone  to  notice  is  that in  all  these  publications,  as  well  as  in  all  other publications  on  the  “measles  virus”  and  other pathogenic viruses, no control experiments were ever performed. No researchers used the density gradient  centrifugation  technique;  instead,  they only centrifuged cellular debris at the bottom of a test tube. This technique, used to collect all the particles from a fluid, is called pelletising. From a logical and scientific perspective, it can be said that in all publications on so-called “pathogenic viruses”,  the  researchers  demonstrated  in  fact only particles and characteristics of cells.

In  our  next  issue  of  WissenschafftPlus,  we  will publish  the  scientific  rebuttal  of  the  claim  that the measles virus exists, which applies to all so-called pathogenic viruses.

We would also like to point out another article, in which we described the so-called giant viruses [9] ,  i.e. an enwrapped nucleic acid that can be found everywhere  in  the  sea  and  in  basic  organisms. Like all bacterial phages, not only they are harmless, but they have beneficial functions. They can be  also  isolated  by  using  the  density  gradient centrifugation, which proves their existence (see the graphics above).

We also recommend Prof Lüdtke’s relevant review (1999). [10]  He noted that at the early beginnings of virology, the majority of virologists always concluded that the structures they had mistaken for viruses turned out to be components of the cells and thus, they  were  only  the  result  of  the  experiment  and not the cause of the changes observed. After the discovery and characterization of the phages and after introducing the dogma that the nucleic acid was the genome of all cells and viruses, the consensus was born, according to which such viruses must exist in humans and animals as well.

In 1992, the dogma stating that the nucleic acid is  the  genotype  of  all  cells  was  retracted  in  the scientific community. In 2008, it was also retracted for a part of the German public community. [11]  The dogma of pathogenic viruses, however, is still being promoted.

The Australian Perth Group (led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Val Turner and John Papadimitriou) [12]  proved with scientific arguments that HIV has not been demonstrated to exist. It was Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos who as early as in 1992 encouraged and  offered  me  scientific  support  to  accept  the reality about HIV, to study the facts and share the knowledge  that  there  are  no  pathogenic  viruses.  I am very thankful to her and her team.

1  Siehe Ausführungen zu Virchows Leben und Wirkung in WissenschafftPlus Nr. 5/2015 und Nr. 6/2015.

2  Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867. Aufsatz von Erwin H. Ackerknecht in der Zeitschrift Bulletin  of  the  History  of  Medicine,  Volume  XXII, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1948.

3  Das Robert Koch-Insitut im Nationalsozialismus. Buch von Annette Hinz-Wessels, 192 Seiten, 2008. Kulturverlag Kadmos Berlin.

4  Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42 (1): 75–85.

5   Nakai  M,  Imagawa  DT.  Electron  microscopy  of measels virus replication. J. Virol. 1969 Feb; 3v (2): 187–97.

6  Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J. Gen. Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9): 1535–42.

7  Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53 (2): 107–14.

8  Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
 
9  Siehe WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2014.

10  Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung. Übersichtsarbeit von Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke. Reprint 125 des MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE, 89 Seiten, 1999.

11   Erbgut  in  Auflösung.  Die  ZEIT  vom  16.6.2008. Siehe  zu  diesem  Thema  die  Beiträge  in  WissenschafftPlus seit 2003.

12  http://www.theperthgroup.com