Contrary to what most people believe, pathogenic viruses do not exist. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historic misinterpretations and not, as I thought in the past – on fraud or deliberate deception. We now have new, better, and in the positive meaning of the word “scientific” discoveries and explanations for the origin, therapy and prevention of many diseases, some of which are still called “viral” today.

The phenomenon of simultaneous or subsequent appearance of symptoms in different persons, which has been until now interpreted as contagion and was believed to be caused by the transmission of pathogens, is now also easy to understand through new discoveries. Thus, we now have a new view of life (which in reality is an old view) and of the cosmological integration of biological processes.

The “new”, but in reality only re-discovered perspective could only originate outside of the official “science”; one of the reasons for this is that the people involved in scientific institutions do not fulfil their first and most important scientific duty – to permanently doubt and question everything. Otherwise, they would have already discovered that the misinterpretation had been taking place for a long time already and had become a dogma only by means of unscientific activities in the years 1858, 1953 and 1954.

The transition to a new explanation of health, disease and healing will only succeed because all the concerned therapists and scientists can save face with it. From history and within the new perspective on biology and life, we now also have explanations of emotions, ignorance and all kinds of human behaviour. This is the second optimistic message. Turning around and forgiving the errors of the past can take place even more effectively, the more one understands what happened and learns for the future.

I am aware that for all the people directly involved, such as doctors, virologists, health care professionals, and above all for the people affected by the system, who suffer under misdiagnoses or who have even lost relatives on account of it, it may be difficult to intellectually accept the explanation of reality that I will offer in this article. In order that the germ theory doesn’t develop a dangerous momentum, as was the case with AIDS, BSE, SARS, MERS, Corona and various other animal flu cases, or even lead to a public order breakdown, I am politely asking all the people who are discovering just now the facts about the “non-existence” of the alleged viruses to discuss the topic in an objective and unemotional manner.

All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognisable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations. The real causes of diseases and phenonema which are ascribed to viruses have already been discovered and researched; this knowledge is now available. All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells that were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, those prepared tissues and cells are dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.

Virologists primarily believe in the existence of viruses, because they add allegedly “infected” blood, saliva or other body fluids to the tissue and cell culture, and this, it must be stressed, after having withdrawn the nutrients from the respective cell culture and after having started poisoning it with toxic antibiotics. They believe that the cell culture is then killed by viruses. The key insight, however, is that the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact! According to the most basic scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation”, in order to see whether it was not the method itself causing or falsifying the result, the scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances or substances from healthy people and animals to the cell culture. This, of course, to check whether it is not the method itself that yields or falsifies the results.

These control experiments have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform these control experiments and the result was that the tissues and cells die, due to the laboratory conditions, in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly “infected” material.

The entire purpose of control experiments is to exclude the posibility that it is the applied method or technique which may cause the result. Control experiments, then, are the highest duty in science and also the exclusive basis of claiming that one’s conclusion is scientific. During the measles virus trial it was the legally appointed expert – Dr. Podbielski, see further in this article – who stated that the papers which are crucial for the entire science of virology contain no control experiments. From this we can conclude that the respective scientists have been working extremely unscientifically, and this without even noticing it.

This completely unscientific approach originated in June 1954, when an unscientific and refutable speculative article was published, according to which the death of tissue in a test tube was considered a possible evidence for the presence of a virus. Six months later, on 10 December 1954, the main author of this opinion was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for another equally speculative theory. The speculation from June 1954 was then raised to a scientific fact due to this distinction¹ and became a dogma which has never been challenged to this date. Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus.

¹ The Nobel Prize is for many reasons the most embarrassing thing that can happen to a scientist and to society:

1. All recognition is based on the respective “dominant opinion” of the academic orthodoxy and its claim to exclusiveness.
2. All such recognitions have proved to be wrong after a short period ranging from several years to several decades. Thus, the Nobel Prize impedes the advancement of scientific knowledge by turning mere assertions into dogmas.
3. A small number of extremely elitist people having left the realm of reality, are ultimately in charge of deciding what is science and what is not science. These people predefine “scientific” fashions and methods and suppress any knowledge that contradicts their views. The practice of “Peer-Review”, that is, the evaluation of scientific papers prior to their publication, prevents that any undesired piece of knowledge refuting their ideas and dogmas ends up being published. For further information read the report about the Nobel Prize in the magazine WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2017. The report includes the picture of a sculpture showing the essence of this issue and speaking louder than any words.

The death of tissues/cells is also regarded as the isolation of a virus, because they claim that something from the outside, from another organism, was presumably brought into the laboratory. The fact is and remains that a virus has never been, the fact is and remains that a virus has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation – has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation, and it has never been photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique structure. The electron micrographs of the alleged viruses, for example, really only show cellular particles from dying tissue and cells, and most photos show only a computer model (CGI – computer generated images). Because the involved parties BELIEVE that the dying tissue and cells transform themselves into viruses, their death is also regarded as propagation of the virus. The involved parties still believe this because the discoverer of this method was awarded the Nobel Prize and his papers remain the reference papers on “viruses”. More about this below.

It is important to mention that this unpurified mixture consisting of dying tissue and cells from monkeys, bovine foetuses and toxic antibiotics, is also being used as a “live” vaccine, because it is supposed to be composed of “attenuated” viruses. The death of tissue and cells – on account of starvation and poisoning and not because of an alleged infection – has continuously been misinterpreted as evidence for the existence of viruses, as evidence for their isolation and as evidence of their propagation.

Thus, the resulting toxic mixture full of foreign proteins, foreign nucleic acids (DNA/RNA), cytotoxic antibiotics, microbes and spores of all types is labelled as a “live vaccine”. It is implanted in children through vaccination mainly into the muscles, in a quantity which if it were injected into the veins would immediately lead to certain death. Only ignorant people who blindly trust in the state authorities who are “testing”and approving the vaccines can regard vaccination as a “small harmless prick”. The verifiable facts demonstrate the danger and negligence of these scientists and politicians, who claim that vaccines are safe, have little or no side-effects and would protect us from a disease. None of these claims is true and scientific, on the contrary: upon precise scientific analysis, one finds that vaccines are useless and the respective literature admits to the lack of any evidence in their favour.²

Individual molecules are extracted from the components of dead tissue and cells, they are misinterpreted to be part of a virus and are theoretically put together into a virus model. It must be stressed, that a real and complete virus does not appear anywhere in the entire “scientific” literature. This is because the process to come to such a description is not done by any scientific method, but purely by means of consensus, in which the participants traditionally argue for years on what pieces of genetic code “belong” to the “virus” and what pieces don’t. In the case of the measles virus, for example, this has taken several decades. Surprisingly, in the case of the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile re-named), this consensus-finding process has lasted only a few mouse clicks.

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 the new virus. In reality, not even this manipulation, called “alignment”, can result in the “complete” genetic material of a virus which could then be called its genome. In this process of theoretical construction of the so-called “viral DNA or viral RNA strands”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a RNA or DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.

In a nutshell: From short fragments, theoretically and according to a model of a viral DNA or RNA strand, a bigger piece is also theoretically fabricated, which in reality doesn’t exist. For example, the “conceptual” construction of the “RNA strand” of the measles virus with its short fragments of cellular particles lacks more than half of the genetic sequences which would represent a complete virus. These are in part artificially created by biochemical methods and the rest are simply invented.³

The Chinese scientists, who now claim that the nucleic acids from which the genome of the new China-Coronavirus-2019 was theoretically constructed⁴ probably originate from poisonous snakes, are just as much the victims of the global misconception regarding “viruses” as we all are. The more viral genetic sequences are invented in the aforementioned way, the more they “discover” similarities with everything. As such, and quite ironically, there is method to the error. A large part of our academic science works like this: A theory is invented, it is always argued inside the theory, they call it science and claim that this represents the reality. In reality it just represents the postulated theory.⁵

² The members of the Libertas & Sanitas association, in their effort to stop mandatory vaccination, have published comprehensive documentation about the knowledge available to the decision-makers in the health authorities. In that way it has been proved that there is no data available in Germany that leads to the conclusion that vaccines are safe and that vaccination only entails a small risk. Furthermore: In Germany there is no collection of data that helps verify if, following the WHO definitons, there was a propagation or epidemic of measles or a stop to that propagation through vaccines for that matter. See: www.libertas-sanitas.de. I also recommend the remarkable video “Verstand&Logik im Gespräch mit Priorix (Masern-Mumps-Röteln-Lebendimpfstoff) [2020]” (English: “Mind & Logic in conversation with Priorix (measles – mumps – rubella – attenuated vaccine) [2020]”).

³ Those fluent in English will realize by reading the following publication that the construction of a complete viral genome is just something purely theoretical: “Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany”, to be found here: https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/1876. The Robert Koch Institute was involved in this research. Prof. Mankertz, co-author of the publication and head of the National Reference Institute for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, claimed upon request that control experiments were carried out for this study in order to rule out that typical cell components were misinterpreted as viral particles. She refused however to release the documentation concerning these control experiments. During the appeal Prof. Mankertz replied that she did not have the control experiments available, but she was sure that her colleagues in Munich should have carried out and documented such experiments. I personally wrote to all authors and to their laboratory managers asking for the control experiments, which are an obligation since 1998. No one answered. The rectors of the contacted research institutes did not answer my questions either and so the appeal procedure came to nothing.

⁴ Publication of 22.1.2020: Homologous recombination within the spike glycoprotein of the newly identified coronavirus may boost cross‐species transmission from snake to human. Authors: Wei Ji, Wei Wang, Xiaofang Zhao, Junjie Zai, Xingguang Li.
To be found in this link: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25682

⁵ For further information read the pages 33-36 of the article “Eine neue Sichtweise auf das Leben - Teil II.” (English: “A new perspective on life – Part II”), WissenschafftPlus magazine Nr. 2/2019. In this article it is explained how almost any form of academic and state financed science will automatically follow an erroneous trend. The legal historian and sociologist Eugen Rosenstock already showed this in 1956, specifically naming the then already refuted theory of infection and cancer medicine.

Due to the lack of negative control experiments, it hasn’t yet occurred to the involved scientists that all tests for “viruses” will result in a certain number of “positives”, depending on the sensitivity of the calibration of the testing equipment. The templates that are used in the tests that supposedly find “viruses” don’t come from “viruses”, but rather from the tissue, cells and foetal serum (blood without specific components) coming from animals, mainly monkeys and calves. Because these animals are biochemically very similar to us humans, it is clear that such particles, which are misinterpreted as viral particles, can be found in all humans by means of “virus tests”. Some “viruses” and their vaccines – although not the measles “virus”– actually originate from aborted human foetuses. It is especially eye-opening here that all the tests detect molecules which exist in every human being and that vaccines can cause particularly dangerous allergic reactions, which have been named “auto-immune diseases”.

The use of foetal serum, considered to be “liquid” tissue, slows down the death of the cells and tissues under examination so much that, without it, most of these experiments could never be carried out in the first place. Only the employment of foetal serum is useful to these scientists, neither serum coming from adult living beings, nor any other synthetic product can be a substitute. One of the most contaminated und impure components of vaccines is the bovine foetal serum, without which the tissue and cells in the laboratory don’t grow at all or don’t grow quickly enough, and which is extracted in the most gruesome manner from foetuses without anaesthesia. It contains all kinds of known and unknown microbes, their spores and a huge number of unknown proteins. Besides the particles from monkey kidney tissue, it is also particles of this foetal serum that scientists are extracting and analysing when they believe that they are putting together a “virus”, which does not exist and was never proven in the entire “scientific” literature as a whole “virus”.

Because the vaccines are exclusively manufactured on the basis of these substances, this explains why it is especially the vaccinated people who test “positive” to all these imaginary “viruses” from which vaccines are manufactured. The tests only react to animal particles of the alleged viruses, animal proteins or nucleic acids which are often identical or very similar to human proteins and nucleic acids. The virus tests do not find anything specific, certainly nothing “viral” and on account of this they are worthless. The consequences, however, as we have seen with Ebola, HIV, Influenza etc., are that people become paralyzed with fear and they often die due to the very dangerous treatment.

It is noteworthy that no so-called “virus test” has a “yes” or “no” result, rather they are calibrated in a way that they can be interpreted as “positive” only after a particular concentration level has been reached. Thus, one can arbitrarily test “positive” just a few people, many people, none or all people and animals, according to the calibration of the test kit. The dimension of this entire scientific illusion becomes clear as soon as we understand that otherwise quite “normal” symptoms are only diagnosed as AIDS, BSE, flu, measles etc. if there is a “positive” test for it.

Up to 1952, the virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme directly poisoning the body, and that it was somehow multiplied by the body itself and would spread in the body as well as between people and between animals. Medicine and science gave up on this idea in 1951, because the suspected virus had never been seen in an electron microscope and, above all, no control experiments had ever been carried out. It was acknowledged that even healthy animals, organs and tissue would release the same decay products during the decomposing process that had been previously misinterpreted as “viruses”. Virology had refuted itself.⁶

However, when the wife of the later Nobel prize winner Crick drew a double helix and this drawing was published in the famous scientific magazine Nature as an alleged scientifically developed model of the supposed DNA, a new and very successful hype began, the so-called molecular genetics. From that moment on, the causes of disease were thought to be in the genes. The idea of a virus changed and over night a virus was no longer a toxin, but rather a dangerous genetic sequence, a dangerous DNA, a dangerous viral strand etc. This new genetic virology was founded by young chemists who had no idea about biology and medicine, but they had unlimited research money. And most probably they didn’t know that the old virology had already refuted itself and given up.

For over 2000 years we have the saying: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”. Since 1995, since we asked the questions about the evidence and published the answers, we can add: “ For they can’t admit that what they have learned and practiced isn’t true and, and stronger even, that it is dangerous and even lethal”. Because nobody until now understood the entire context and had the courage to say the truth, we now have even more “evil spirits” (quoting Goethe) and subsidiary hypotheses, such as the “immune system” or “epigenetics”, merely in order to maintain the fictitious theories.

In origin, the idea of a virus arose from the forced logic of the dogma of cellular theory. Then came the idea of the pathogenic bacteria, the bacterial toxins, then the viral toxins, until this idea was finally given up in 1952. Starting with 1953, Virchow’s idea of a disease poison (Latin for: “poison”) became the genetic virus, which in turn gave birth to the idea of the cancer genes. Then we had the “war against cancer” of the Nixon era, and later the idea of genes for everything appeared. In the year 2000, however, the entire genetic theory was refuted as well, after the contradictory data of the so-called human genome project was published together with the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been mapped, even though more than half of it was completely invented.⁷

People are not aware that it is very difficult for the respective academics to admit that they were involved in such misconceptions.

⁶ Karlheinz Lüdtke: Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung. Wie sich mit technischen Fortschritten bei der Untersuchung “filtrierbarer“ infektiöser Agenzien das Verständnis der Virusnatur entwickelt hatte. (English: On the history of early virus research. How technical progress in the investigation of “filterable” infectious agents developed the understanding of the nature of viruses). Reprint Nr. 125 (1999) of the “Max-Planck-Instituts für Wissenschafts-geschichte” (Max-Planck-Institute for the history of science), 89 pages.

⁷ On the refutation of all previous ideas about a so-called genetic material as building and function plan of life, you can refer to my articles in the WissenchafftPlus magazine. The index for all published editions since 2003 is available on the internet. Particularly worth reading is the article “Erbgut in Auflösung”, published in “DIE ZEIT” on 12.6.2008 (English: Genome in dissolution) that is available on the internet for free. This article summarizes that the “genome” is constantly changing, therefore it cannot carry out the things that scientists ascribe to genomes and also that its changes are misinterpreted as disease genes.

The source for the idea of a genetic virus in humans, animals and plants, which started to develop from 1953 onwards, were the so-called bacteria-eaters, called (bacterio)phages, which had drawn the attention of scientists since 1915. From 1938 on, when commercially available electron microscopes were applied in research, these phages could be photographed, isolated as whole particles and all their components could be biochemically determined and characterised. This is real, and cannot be contested. To isolate them, i.e. concentrate the particles and separate them from all other components (=isolation), to photograph them immediately in the isolated state and to biochemically characterise them all in one go – this, however, has never happened with the alleged viruses of humans, animals and plants because these do not exist.

The scientists researching bacteria and phages, who worked with actual existing structures, provided a model as to what human, animal and plant viruses could look like. However, the “phage experts” have overlooked by their misinterpretation of phages as bacteria eaters that the phenomenon of the formation of these particles is caused by the extreme inbreeding of bacteria. This effect, i.e. the formation and release of phages (bacteria eaters, aka bacteria viruses), doesn’t happen amongst pure bacteria, freshly extracted from an organism or the environment. When their nutrients are withdrawn slowly or their living conditions become impossible, normal bacteria – that is: bacteria which are not grown in the lab – create the known survival forms, the spores, which can survive for a long time or even “eternally”. From spores, new bacteria appear as soon as the living conditions improve.

However, isolated bacteria, when grown in the lab, lose all characteristics and abilities. Many of them do not perish automatically through this in-breeding, but rather turn suddenly and completely into small particles, which in the “good versus evil” theory perspective have been misinterpreted as bacteria-eaters. In reality, bacteria originate from these exact “phages” and they turn back again into these life forms when the living conditions are no longer available. Günther Enderlein (1827–1968) described exactly these processes more than a century ago: how bacteria appear from invisible structures, their development into more complex forms and back again. That is why Enderlein did not agree with the cell theory, according to which life appears from cells and is organised at cellular level.⁸ As a young student, I myself isolated such a “phage” structure from a sea algae, and believed at that time to have discovered the first harmless virus, the first stable “virus host system”.⁹

The idea, furthermore, that bacteria exist as single viable organisms, which can exist alone without any other life forms, is incorrect. In isolated form, they automatically die off after some time. This never occurred to the scientists, because after a successful “isolation” of a bacterium, a part of it is frozen and can be worked with in the lab decades later. The idea of bacteria being living independent structures which can survive by themselves is a laboratory artefact, a misinterpretation.

Thus, the claim that is made on the basis of that myth, that bacteria are immortal, is therefore untrue. Bacteria are immortal only in symbiosis with a huge number of other bacteria, fungi and probably many more unknown life forms which are difficult to characterise, such as for example the amoeba. Amoebae, bacteria and fungi form spores as soon as their living environment disappears and re-emerge once the living conditions return. If one compares that with humans, we have the same perspective: without a living environment, from and with which we live, nothing can exist.

However, these discoveries go much deeper. Not only the entire species concept is dissolving, but also the idea and the claim about the alleged existence of dead matter. Observations and conclusions about a living “active matter” (as physicists call it) are dismissed as unscientific vitalism. There is considerable evidence, however, that all those elements which the “dominant opinion” in “science” does not consider as being alive, actually originate and develop from the membrane of water, i.e. the “Ursubstanz”,¹⁰ or primordial source of life. These elements then create the nucleic acids, and around the nucleic acids they create the biological life in the form of amoebae, bacteria, tardigrades and ever-more complex life forms. We have two distinct confirmations on this perspective. One of them can be observed by every person for himself as well as for other people, i.e. that biological life in the form of our body is actually a materialisation of the elements of an existing conscience. We can name them and we know the exact way in which our organs and psyche interact and influence each other through information. It is known, for instance, that a single word can either do damage or solve a conflict. We can verify all these aspects because they are predictable. Thus, the three criteria of scientific research are fulfilled.¹¹ This is important, because these findings and the knowledge on how they relate to each other free us from fear as well as from the fear-inducing “good versus evil” mentality and what is even more important: the sick-making behavioural patterns derived from it. These revealing scientific discoveries clarify as well the processes of disease, healing, the “healing crisis”, the suspended healing and the phenomenon of subsequent diseases (aka the old concept of “contagion”). Virus, it’s time to go.¹²

The nightmare of materialistic science, then, seems to come true: even apparently dead matter is alive, it is vital. The vitalism, according to which there is a life force in all things, was contested by the Greek philosophers Democritus and Epicurius and the followers of their doctrine. Their main argument was that they wanted to castigate any abuse of faith and prevent its repetition. Their intention was apparently good. However, they ignored that by denying the concepts of conscience and spirit and all the levels of manifestation of these forces, they turned involuntarily into destroyers of life and enemies of the people.

These “good versus evil” interpretations are constantly increasing due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences, which were discovered and described by Silvio Gesell¹³ (in general) and Ivan Illich¹⁴ (in medicine), are constantly increasing¹⁵ due to the thirst for profit and its fatal consequences. The consequences of our money system’s inherent compulsion to even more growth, to permanent growth even, which generates cyclical catastrophes and brings about ever more powerful winners and simultaneously a constantly increasing impoverishment and suffering, is interpreted by all the people involved as proof for an independent principle of evil, because these people don’t know the mathematically determined, tenacious inherent mechanisms of the money system. It appears that the people on the winning side, who are ethically correct, regard the mathematically obligatory generated profit as evidence of their godliness and exceptionality. This was not just the basis for Manichaeism (Mani was the Babylonian founder of this religion, whose followers are called Manichaens), but has always been the driving force of the dangerous aspects and effects of industrialisation, as Max Weber and others discovered.

⁸ A good insight into the work and system of knowledge of Prof. Günter Enderlein can be found in the doctoral thesis written by Dr. Elke Krämer “Leben und Werk von Prof. Dr. phil. Günther Enderlein (1872- 1968)“ (English: Life and work of Prof. Dr. phil. Günther Enderlein (1872- 1968), published as a book in 2012 by Reichl Verlag in St. Goar.

⁹ Riesenviren und die Entstehung des Lebens (English: Giant viruses and the origin of life). WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2014.

¹⁰ Wasser begreifen, Leben erkennen. PI-Wasser: Mehr als nur energetisiertes H₂O. (English: Understanding water, perceiving life. Pi-water: More than just energized H₂O), WissenschafftPlus Nr. 6/2018. This contribution can be found on our webpage www.wissenschafftplus.de under “important texts”.

¹¹ See the introduction to a new perspective on life in issues Nr. 1, 2 and 3 /2019 of WissenschafftPlus.

¹² Comprehensive presentation of the measles virus trial: go Virus go. Der Bundesgerichtshof lässt den Glauben an Viren untergehen (English: go virus go. The Federal Court lets the belief in viruses go down). WissenschafftPlus Nr. 2/2017. Also free on the internet: wissenschafftplus.de.

¹³ As an introduction to the findings and solution proposals of Silvio Gesell to escape from the autonomous mechanisms of the monetary system, you can read the book “Wer hat Angst vor Silvio Gesell“ (English: Who fears Silvio Gesell) written by Hermann Benjes (292 pages). (editor's note: see also Financial Fraud: Lord Keynes, the New Deal and 'Stimulus' Mania by Steve Penfield, and The Natural Economic Order by Silvio Gesell)

¹⁴ Ivan Illich. Die Nemesis der Medizin: Die Kritik der Medikalisierung des Lebens. (English: Ivan Illich. The nemesis of medicine: criticism on the medicalization of life) 319 pages, 1976 and 1995. (editor's note: see review of Nemesis of Medicine)

¹⁵ In his book “Can Medicine be cured? The corruption of a profession”, the author Seamus O‘Mahony, a famous Irish gastroenterologist, distorts the writings of Ivan Illich. Illich states that his diagnosis on the perversion of medicine has as its “only” cause the internal dynamics resulting from the profit-making compulsion, being the pharmaceutical industry one more player in that system. O‘Mahony on the other hand blames the pharmaceutical industry for the corruption of the medical professions and concludes that medicine cannot be cured. According to him, medicine on its own would not be able to get rid of that perversion and only a humanitarian catastrophe or a war would make a reset possible. In this way he overlooks the misconception that originated in 1858 due to Virchow: The incorrect and, even at that time, baseless cellular pathology theory that was the direct precursor of the, later developed but equally wrong and dangerous, theories about infection, the immune system, genes and cancer. On page 262 of his book, the author acknowledges that there was another school of medicine that understood health as a result of life being in harmony with itself and with its environment but that this school had no chance. He was referring to the “psychosomatic” of Prof. Claus Bahne Bahnson and his international colleagues. They did not make much progress though, stuck as they were in the false biochemistry of the cell theory. Only Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer managed to develop a scientific, comprehensive and individualized psychosomatic theory.

We have explained in several articles in our magazine “WissenschafftPlus” starting with the year 2014 the greater framework of the misguided development of biology and medicine, the untenable dogma of the so-called cell theory, which claimed that the body develops from cells and not from tissues. The cell theory of life, the “cellular pathology”, invented by Rudolf Virchow in 1858, which to date is the exclusive basis for biology and medicine, claims that all disease (as well as all life) originates from a single cell, which is somehow hijacked by a virus, starts to deteriorate and then propagates that virus. Two crucial aspects served as precondition and basis for the current global acceptance of cellular pathology, from which the infectious theory, the genetic, immune and cancer theories have developed, was only possible because of two crucial aspects.

1. The cell theory was only implemented because Rudolf Virchow suppressed crucial discoveries about tissues. The findings and insights with respect to the structure, function and central importance of tissues in the creation and development of life, which were already known in 1858, comprehensively refute the cell theory and the subsequently derived genetic, immune and cancer theories.¹⁶
2. The infection theories were only established as a global dogma through the concrete politics and eugenics of the Third Reich. Before 1933, scientists dared to contradict this theory; after 1933, these critical scientists were silenced.¹⁷

In order to work with “viruses” and carry out so-called infectious experiments, before the concept of virology was abandoned in 1952, the “virologists” were forced to dissolve and filtrate “diseased” and putrescent tissue. The concentrated filtrate, so they believed, contained a pathogen, a toxin, which they thought would be constantly produced by the infected cells. Until 1952, a “virus” was defined as a pathogenic poison in the form of a protein, which as an enzyme caused damage in an unknown manner, would cause disease and be transmissible. After 1953, the year in which the alleged DNA in the form an alleged alpha helix was publicly announced, the idea of a virus became a malignant genotype wrapped in proteins. Thus, a paradigm shift took place between 1952 to 1954 regarding the image of a virus.

“Infectious experiments” with animals were carried out with the filtrated fluids from putrescent organisms or from fluids allegedly containing the proteins/enzymes which were supposed to represent the virus. The results were meant to prove that a virus was present and would cause the illness ascribed to it. However, what is never mentioned publicly is that the symptoms allegedly caused in human beings by a virus could never be replicated in animal experiments, instead there were always only “similar” symptoms, which they then claimed to be identical with the disease in humans. However, none of this has ever been proven scientifically.

To date, all “infectious experiments” are missing the control experiments, i.e. the proof that the symptoms are not caused by the “treatment” of the genetic material in the so-called “infectious” experiment. In order to exclude that it was not the fluids of diseased tissue that caused the symptoms, one would have had to do an identical experiment, only with other fluids or with sterilised fluids. However, that has never happened. Extremely cruel animal experiments are carried out to date – for example in order to prove the transmissibility of measles; during these experiments, monkeys are tied up and immobilised in a vacuum chamber with a tube in their nose, and then scientists insert the allegedly infected fluids through that tube into their trachea and lungs. The exact same damage would be caused by sterile saline solution, sterilised blood, pus or saliva. The induced symptoms, which are only “similar” to those ascribed to measles, are then claimed to be measles.

Since the allegedly infected fluids are pressed through a filter which allegedly filters out bacteria and they are slightly heated, the scientists claim that the suffering and death of the animals in those experiments cannot be caused by bacteria, but rather by smaller “pathogens”, the viruses. The concerned scientists conveniently ignored the fact already acknowledged at that time that there are there are much more unknown bacteria than known ones, that many bacteria are heat resistant and that they form spores which cannot be filtrated. It is important to mention here that there is no evidence whatsoever that bacteria cause any disease either. They are of course often present in the disease process, like the firemen putting out the fire. Bacteria do not cause disease, but rather they participate in biological meaningful reparation processes. As with viruses, the only so-called evidence for the apparently negative role of bacteria are the horrific animal experiments which are completely meaningless, since all control experiments are missing.

¹⁶ Rudolf Virchow, ein Stratege der Macht. Teil 1 und Teil 2. (English: Rudolf Virchow, a strategist of power. Part 1 and part 2) Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus Nr. 5/2015 and Nr. 6/2015 and Entwicklung von Medizin und Menschheit. (English: Development of medicine and mankind) Stefan Lanka. WissenschafftPlus Nr. 6/2015.

¹⁷ Annette Hinz-Wessels. Das Robert Koch-Institut im Nationalsozialismus (English: The Robert Koch Institute under National Socialism). Kulturverlag Kadmos, 192 pages, 2012. The book points out that only after the German scientists opposing and refuting the theory of infection were killed, deported or imprisoned, did the theory of infection turn into a mainstream globally accepted theory.

Up to the year 1949, the “virologists” cultivated their suspected “viruses” (proteins) by placing a piece of putrescent genetic material, which had been taken from a tissue allegedly infected by a virus, on a slice of “healthy” tissue of the same type. The visible intensification of the putrefaction process, which was transmitted from the “sick” tissue to the “healthy” tissue, was misinterpreted as proliferation and spreading of the virus, of the pathogenic poison. Due to control experiments with healthy tissue carried out for the first time in 1951, the virologists discovered that what they saw were quite normal processes of tissue decay and not a virus that would only be present in “sick” tissue.

Enter John Franklin Enders. In 1949, he “discovered” by chance – because he had no fresh “healthy” nerve tissue available – that other types of tissue started to decompose as well if a piece of brain from a person who died of polio was placed on it. Previously, the virologists had believed that every virus could only propagate in the organic material that it would also damage. For the alleged discovery that “viruses” propagate in other tissues as well, which they don’t damage in live humans, Enders and the other involved academics were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine on the 10th of June 1954.

From then on, the alleged “polio virus” was propagated by mixing human foetal skin tissue and muscle with brain substance from people who had died of “polio”, the mixture of which then collectively decayed. The filtrate from this mixture, then, was considered to contain a “virus”. The famous Jonas Salk adopted this exact idea without naming the inventor. Salk used the filtrate of decayed human foetal tissue as a polio vaccine, the New York Times stated that the vaccine worked and would be safe, and Salk generated millions of dollars with the polio vaccine, without sharing anything with the real inventor of the idea of using decomposing human foetuses.¹⁸

For these reasons, Enders worked hard to develop another technique, for which he could take the credit from the very beginning. He chose the second most lucrative area of the germ theory of disease, namely that of the symptoms called measles. Enders used the same ideas and methods from bacteriology (in which he had graduated) and believed that the phages were the viruses of bacteria.

Analogous to this technique of demonstrating how phages allegedly destroy bacteria on a Petri dish, he developed a tissue streak on which allegedly infected fluid was placed. Analogous to the dying off of the bacteria, the dying off of the tissue streak was claimed to be at the same time the presence of the suspected virus, the proof for its existence, its isolation and its multiplication. This precise protocol is still applied to date in the case of measles and, slightly modified, as “evidence” of all pathogenic viruses.¹⁹ The mixture of dying or dead cells/tissues is now called a “live vaccine”. If single particles of dead tissue or synthethically produced molecules are used in vaccines, the experts call it “killed vaccine” or “inactivated vaccine”.

Enders blamed the strikingly high numbers of deaths and injuries that the Salk polio vaccine caused in the population on the contamination of the vaccine with unknown human viruses, which is why he worked in his lab with tissues from monkey kidneys and foetal serum from horses and unborn calves.

There are four striking and crucial differences between the evidence of the existing (bacterio)phages and Enders’ alleged evidence of the hypothetic “viruses” in humans and animals. These differences clarify Enders’ wrong assumptions, since he completely forgot his earlier clearly expressed doubts once he had received the Nobel prize, and so he led all of his colleagues and consequently the entire world (see the Corona panic) down the wrong path. … Or: exactly the same thing as is happening now, with the Corona-panic The entire world, except a pretty but stubborn schwabian village near lake Constanz (where Dr Lanka lives, note of the translator):

1. The (bacterio)phages have indeed been isolated in the meaning of the word “isolation” with standard methods (density gradient centrifugation). Immediately after the isolation they have been photographed in an electron microscope, their purity is determined and then their components, their proteins and their DNA have been biochemically described all at once, in one single paper.
2. With respect to all “viruses” of humans, animals or plants, however, no virus was ever isolated, photographed in an isolated form and its components were never biochemically characterised all at once, from the “isolate”. In reality, there was a consensus process, taking place over quite a number of years, in which single particles of dead cells were theoretically ascribed to a totally virtual virus model. The phages served as a model for this entire interpretation process, as we can see clearly from the first drawings of a “virus”.
3. The tissue and cells used for the “proof and propagation” of “viruses” are prepared in a very special manner before the act of the alleged “infection”. 80% of their nutrients is withdrawn, so that they can become “hungry” and better absorb the “viruses”. They are treated with antibiotics in order to exclude the possibility that bacteria, which are present always and everywhere in all tissues and serums, may cause the expected death of the cells. It was acknowledged only in 1972 by biochemistry experts that those antibiotics were damaging and killing the cells by themselves, a fact that the virologists had previously ignored. “Starvation” and “poisoning” is what kills the cells, but this was and still is misinterpreted as the presence, isolation, effect and propagation of the hypothetical viruses.
4. The control experiments that are crucial and required in science have to date not been carried out with respect to viruses; they could exclude the possibility that instead of a virus just typical cell particles were misinterpreted as a virus. The control experiments regarding the isolation, biochemical description and electron micrographs of the phages, however, were all carried out.

Thus, Enders’ speculations dated 1 June 1954²⁰ about the possible proof of an “agent” which could “possibly” play a role in measles became an apparently “scientific” fact and the exclusive basis for the entire new genetic virology after 1952, all because of his Nobel prize for the “human foetus/polio virus vaccine” in December 1954. A few months after having received his Nobel prize, Enders forgot or suppressed the discrepancies and doubts that he had mentioned himself in his 1954 paper. Still suffering due to the plagiarism committed by Jonas Salk, who had stolen his idea for the polio vaccine, Enders stated that all future developments of a measles vaccine would have to be based on his (Enders’) technique.

Enders killed his tissue cultures himself unintentionally through the treatment with antibiotics (without negative control experiments – and this is a crucial aspect in the context of mandatory measles vaccination). Ever since Enders experimented with a smear taken from a young boy named David Edmonston who was supposedly ill from measles, the first model of a measles “virus” (hypothetically put together from particles of dead tissue) has been called the “Edmonston strain”. The measles vaccine, as a toxic sum of all those decayed pieces of tissue, is also claimed to contain the “Edmonston strain”. A part of that mixture containing dead monkey tissue and foetal bovine serum is being constantly frozen and then used regularly to “inoculate” other dying tissue/cells in order to create “measles viruses” and “live vaccines”.

¹⁸ See the English version of the Wikipedia article about John Franklin Enders.

¹⁹ The First Measles Virus. Jeffrey P. Baker. Veröffentlicht im Magazin Pediatrics, September 2011, 128 (3) 435-437;
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1430

²⁰ Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles. John F. Enders and Thomas C. Peebles. Im Magazin “Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine“, Vol. 86, Issue 2 vom 1.6.1954, Seite 277-286. https://doi.org/10.3181/00379727-86-21073

The crucial expert opinions, protocols and rulings of the measles virus trial (2012–2017) that I will refer to in the following are freely available on the internet www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog. Further expert opinions and refutations of the claims regarding the measles virus, which the Court did not take into account, are published in the editions of the WissenschafftPlus magazine from 2014 to 2017.

The background of the measles virus trial, which began in 2011, was to prevent the planned compulsory measles vaccinations. A former Federal Justice minister had called me and asked for scientific data to help stop the introduction of mandatory vaccination. A leading senior state prosecutor gave us the idea to offer a prize for the proof of the “measles virus” and, in the subsequent civil trial, to legally establish that there is no scientific evidence for the claims that the measles virus exists and that vaccines were safe and effective. Our plan was entirely successful. This is easily understandable if one knows why the paper by John Franklin Enders et al. published on the 1st of June 1954, became the only and exclusive basis of the entire new genetic virology of the “live virus” vaccine production after the old virology had died a natural death in 1951–1952.

Knowing that the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), contrary to its legal duty, had not published a single paper on the alleged existence of the measles virus, I offered a €100,000 prize for a scientific paper from the RKI containing the scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus. A young doctor from Saarland presented me with six papers but none from the RKI; the papers were: the one from Enders published the 1st of June 1954 and five others, based exclusively on Enders’ original paper, one of them being the most comprehensive review of other papers on the measles virus. In this “review” we can find a description of the laborious consensus-building process which lasted for decades and included dilemmas such as which parts of the dead tissue are to be ascribed to the measles virus model and also how the measles virus model had to be constantly modified.

I replied to the young doctor (who urgently recommended me to waive the (indeed) costly “legal dispute” and to immediately pay him the prize money) that in none of the six publications was there any identifiable viral structure, but rather easily recognisable typical cellular particles and structures. Thereupon he filed a suit with the Ravensburg Local Court, this however, without submitting the six publications to the court. The Ravensburg Court decided against me, even though the six publications never appeared in the legal files. Apart from that, the verdict of the Ravenburg Local Court occurred under more than unusual circumstances.²¹

The plaintiff admitted to the judge during the appeal at the Stuttgart Higher Court that he himself had never read the six publications. So he was planning to shut me down and thus silence the central refutation of the vaccination through the “tedious legal battle”. He may have been a victim of the false belief in viruses himself, because he probably trusted his colleagues, which is normal, but who themselves had no idea about the erroneous development in medicine since 1858 and did not do any historical research with respect to their false beliefs, this becoming simultaneously culprits and perpetrators and victims of their fatal belief in the germ theories and their trust in vaccinations.

It is plausible that the plaintiff did not read the six publications he presented to me, but not to the court. At least it is clear that he didn’t look for them himself, because they are the only publications in the entire field of about 30,000 technical articles about “measles” in which a reference to the accepted existence of the measles virus is made. However, all the tons of other papers, which nobody can ever finish reading, assume “a priori” the existence of the measles virus and always refer to citations of citations, which are finally and exclusively based on the alleged “evidence” supplied by Enders on the 1st of June 1954.

The Ravensburg Local Court decided in 2014 to accept the lawsuit of Dr Bardens and concluded that the prize money was to be paid out even without any publication from the RKI. Apart from that, the Ravensburg Local Court decided that it wouldn’t be necessary for the scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus to be published in one single paper, but rather that the overall 3,366 papers (the sum of all the papers cited in the six submitted publications) from 1954 to 2007 was to be accepted as proof.

The legally appointed expert Professor Podbielski from Rostock argued accordingly (or the local court adjusted its opening decision to the expert opinion): “I have to expressly clarify that one cannot provide evidence in the classical sense in biology as one can in mathematics or physics. In biology one can only gather clues, which at some point in time in their entirety attain probative value.“²²

Based on this extremely unscientific claim arising from Podbielski’s lack of arguments and his bias due to the discrepancies between reality and the beliefs he had grown so fond of, something happened which behavioural scientists call “displacement”. Podbielski invented a desperate excuse, namely that biology and the medicine based thereon as well as vaccinations are per se unscientific and without evidence, without proof: In his opinion, only a collection of clues could “some day” and “somehow” (practically) attain probative value. A more explicit admission of the existent unscientific nature of current biology and medicine has never been expressed with such clarity.

What is most important at present is to make legal use of all this evidence for the unscientific nature of the infection theory and the vaccination policies, which are already impacting our constitutional rights. We need to make the mandatory measles vaccination, voted upon and implemented in Germany as of 1 March 2020, simply disappear.

Further information about this will be published in our newsletter.

Continuation of this article:

1. The duty of science to carry out control experiments. The statements given to protocol by Professor Podbielski during the measles virus trial that all the crucial publications about the existence of the measles virus and all subsequent publications, contrary to his expert written opinion, do not contain a single control experiment.²³
2. The crucial importance of the legal judgment from the Stuttgart Upper State Court from 16/02/2016, Article 12 U 63/15 for virology and vaccination policies.²⁴
3. Reports and advice on what has already been done in order to reverse the mandatory measles vaccination law. will follow in the next WissenschafftPlus edition 2/2020.

will follow in the next WissenschafftPlus edition 2/2020.

²¹ See 12.

²² Protocol of the trial of 12.3.2015 before the Ravensburg Local Court, page 7 lower section. See www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog

²³ Protocol of the trial of 12.3.2015 before the Ravensburg Local Court, page 7 upper section. See www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog

²⁴ To be found here http://lrbw.juris.de or here www.wissenschafftplus.de/blog

According to the definition of SARS and of Corona or Covid-19, atypical pneumonia is considered to be the characteristic clinical picture of the illness. If pathogens commonly associated with the disease are proved to be present, the pneumonia is classified as typical, if not, pneumonia is classified as atypical. A decisive fact in the SARS and Corona-crisis is that at least 20-30% of all diagnosed pneumonias are classified as atypical. The causes of atypical pneumonia are clearly known and therefore they should NOT be ascribed to an unknown virus.

This knowledge is suppressed or disregarded by infectiologists and virologists and it is the basis of the current state of fear and panic, as the impression spreads among the affected people, the public opinion and among politicians that atypical pneumonia is especially dangerous and deadly due to the lack of drugs or vaccines for the supposedly new illness.

As soon as the test method for the detection of the supposed new virus was launched, the involved parties conceal the fact that healthy people test “positive” as well, the so-called asymptomatic carriers, which automatically leads to an increase in the number of cases. First, patients with typical pneumonia are recorded as having contracted the virus and then more and more people with other illnesses join the list. This is regarded as practical evidence of the virus propagation. New medical conditions are added to the original “atypical pneumonia”, comprising a so-called “syndrome” that is presented as the “new viral illness”.

The other decisive fact — not just for SARS or the corona crisis — is that virologists, by assuming the existence of pathogenic viruses, suppress for understandable reasons an underlying truth. The current testing method tests for the presence of a specific genetic material. However, the genetic sequences used as a “template” for such tests have not been isolated from a virus. Scientists isolate typical genetic sequences released by dying cells and tissues. These generally short genetic sequences, components of human metabolic processes, are the foundation of the subsequent laboratory work. With the help of computer programs, virologists “conceptually” construct a longer RNA or DNA strand out of the many isolated shorter genetic sequences. These constructed RNA or DNA strands are then claimed to be real viral strands. That is the reason why so many healthy people end up testing positive again and again.

To overcome a crucial contradiction, virologists consequently disregard two prescribed rules of good science. The first one is that scientists need to verify all claims themselves. The second one is that all assumptions and methods need to be verified by means of control experiments. If they carried out the control experiments, they would realize that ALL short genetic sequences that are conceptually combined to form a viral genetic strand are in reality products of the human metabolism and do not come from a supposedly external virus.

The momentum of the Corona crisis was triggered once a message written on 30 December 2019 by a young Chinese ophthalmologist leaked on the internet. In this quickly spreading message he was informing some of his friends about the fact that several people had been put into quarantine at his hospital and that at least seven of them had tested positive for SARS. He advised them to be careful and protect themselves. Prof Christian Drosten, head of the Institute of Virology at the Charité – Medical School in Berlin, was informed about the situation and he immediately started to develop a test for SARS viruses despite the fact that, by that date, the news from China about a supposedly SARS outbreak were not confirmed and the Chinese virologists had not even published their investigations.

The Chinese virologists of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (abbreviated as CCDC) published their first results on 24 January 2020 and on 3 February 2020, respectively. They reported about the isolation of many short genetic sequences that, when conceptually arrayed, could represent the genome of a new virus. These authors — and also other virologists involved until today — specifically indicated that the necessary experiments, required to conclude that these genetic sequences actually belonged to a pathogenic virus, had not been carried out. On the contrary: the Chinese virologists claimed that the constructed genetic strand showed a 90% similarity to other genetic strands ascribed to harmless corona viruses which had been found in bats decades ago.

As early as 21 January 2020 (3 days before the first publication of the CCDC!), the WHO recommended that all countries use the testing method developed by Prof Drosten. As we will see later on, his claim to have developed a reliable detection test for the virus that was supposedly spreading in China greatly aggravated and globalized the panic around the pandemic and he did this while ignoring the obligatory rules of conduct for scientific research, which are an integral part of his work contract, and by violating the logic and general principles of virology.

On 30 December 2019 in Wuhan, the young ophthalmologist Li Wenliang contacted seven other fellow physicians through the WeChat app to inform them that, at his hospital, several people had been put into quarantine and that seven of them were allegedly infected with the SARS virus. It had not been his intention to unleash a wave of panic, he just wanted to alert his friends and to recommend them to take protective measures. Otherwise he would have published this information on the internet on his own. However, one of the seven receivers of this message ended up publishing a screenshot of the conversation on the internet without being aware of the consequences. The news spread rapidly inside China and overseas.

This leak unleashed a wave of fear and panic in China and a huge amount of information requests were sent to the government and to the health authorities. The memory of the 2003 SARS virus crisis, which the World Health Organization (WHO) had classified as a “global threat” on 12 March 2003, was still fresh in the minds of the Chinese citizens. The government reacted quickly and a “rapid reaction group” of epidemiologists and virologists of the CCDC was sent to Wuhan on 31 December 2019 in order to assist the health authorities of the city and the surrounding region. Their mission was to test and verify the assumption that an outbreak had indeed taken place. Provided that this had been the case, they were expected to bring the situation under control.

The first publication of the authors of the CCDC regarding the results of their preliminary investigation, published under the title “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”,²⁵ does not mention any increase in the number of atypical pneumonia cases (“patients with pneumonia of unknown cause”). What the report highlights is one common characteristic shared by a cluster of affected patients. What they had in common was the regular visit to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. The group of patients affected by the atypical pneumonia was certainly small, as the CCDC workers took swab and fluid samples of the lower respiratory tract from only four people in order to look for any known or unknown pathogens.

In the meantime, panic was taking over Wuhan and its surroundings. On 3 January 2020, the police had the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang sign a gag order forcing him to remain silent and to abstain from further “spreading rumors” about the possible SARS outbreak. This measure, however, did little to slow down the panic. The situation became more tense when, on 10 January 2020, Li Wenliang developed symptoms of pneumonia along with his parents. Wenliang isolated himself with the conviction that he had “caught” the SARS virus from a patient the day before. This increased the panic as well.

The physicians who were looking after him tried several testing methods available, but Li Wenliang tested negative to all of them. His health worsened by the day on par with an increasing media coverage and an increasing public interest in his fate. More tests were carried out until he finally tested positive for SARS on 30 January 2020. The SARS panic escalated to new heights and the way was paved for the oncoming global corona crisis.

Li Wenliang made this [positive] result available to the public on the internet with the following words: “Today nucleic acid testing came back with a positive result, the dust has settled, finally diagnosed.“

This message aggravated the already existing panic. The last straw that broke the camel’s back was the leaking to the public of the gag order signed by Wenliang on the 3 January 2020. For many people this was a clear evidence that the Chinese government was hiding a SARS outbreak and that the young physician, despite being ill and despite being under threat, courageously tried to inform the public. His health deteriorated further, the intensive use of antibiotics proved ineffective and he eventually died on 7 February 2020. The situation was on the brink of escalation due to the chaotic and contradictory way in which the government informed about his death. This was and remains the central foundation that led the Chinese and international public opinion to assume that a new SARS outbreak had taken place in Wuhan. The name was eventually changed to Covid-19 and classified as a pandemic.

²⁵ A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 727-33. DOI: 10.1056/NEJ-Moa2001017.
Published on the 24.1.2020. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

Li Wenliang’s fear was based on the events of 2003. Back then, several Western scientists were studying an increase in the number of atypical pneumonia cases in Southern China. Two days after Prof Drosten’s participation in the conceptual construction of an RNA strand allegedly belonging to a new virus (SARS-CoV-1),²⁶ the German scientist offered a test for this new virus.²⁷ Around 800 people with atypical pneumonia (i.e. a pneumonia where no known pathogens were identified) tested positive with it. Most of these people died – probably due to medical malpractice and “overtreatment” – after being diagnosed with SARS instead of “atypical pneumonia”.

The reason why the fear of SARS perpetuated across time and was still present in 2019 can be traced back to two scientific papers published in 2013²⁸ and 2014.²⁹ These publications set in all kinds of speculations about the fact that new SARS Corona virus outbreaks were a matter of time. The authors of both papers claim that there is evidence of the presence of short genetic sequences in healthy bats that might be classified as components of a virus. These short genetic sequences were said to be similar to the genetic sequences that in 2003 were declared as constituents of the alleged SARS-CoV-1 (SARS Coronavirus 1). SARS stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which is a description of the symptoms of an atypical pneumonia.

The conceptual construction of this fictious viral genetic material is presented as if it existed and could represent a real virus. Their claim is that such a harmless virus, present in bats and other animals, could be transmitted to humans by means of bites, contact or consumption and would pose a deadly threat. Once inside the human body, the virus would be able to mutate into a pathogenic new SARS corona virus.

The authors considered such an incident and the resulting wave of virus-related illnesses, e.g. atypical pneumonia, to be inevitable.

Virologists have not been able up to this day to isolate a SARS virus from any patient, bat or any other wild animal in order to determine a complete and intact genetic strand belonging to a SARS virus, in other words, in order to determine the genome of the virus. Their assumption of the existence of viral genetic strands with an identical structure to the ones that they conceptually construct out of the isolated shorter genetic sequences has not been proved. Although there are very simple techniques available that enable the determination of the length of genetic sequences, the existence and presence of a complete viral genetic strand belonging to a SARS virus has never been demonstrated.

These false claims were the basis of Li Wenliang’s fears as well as of the fears of many other physicians and infectiologists beyond Wuhan. It also explains why the efforts of all virologists and epidemiologists working for the CCDC were directed after 31 December 2019 toward finding similar genetic sequences to the ones defined to be components of the 2003 SARS Corona virus (more on this below).

²⁶ Von der Verantwortung eines Virologen. Ist Christian Drosten Opfer oder Täter? (About the responsibility of a virologist. ¿Is Christian Drosten a victim or a perpetrator?) Published on 5 May 2020 by the peace activist Peter Frey on his blog, peds-an-sichten.de
https://kenfm.de/von-der-verantwortung-eines-virologen/

²⁷ SARS, Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome

²⁸ Xing-Yi Ge et al., Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature.
Band 503, 2013, S. 535–538, doi:10.1038/nature12711 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711

²⁹ Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus.
Ben Hu, Lei-Ping Zeng, Xing-Lou Yang et al., PLoS Pathogens. 13(11): e1006698, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698;
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

Media outlets ignited the SARS and corona crisis once they started disseminating the news of an increase in the reported cases of atypical pneumonia, a claim that was never proven. It was simply assumed from the very beginning that the emergence of cases of atypical pneumonia had to be related to a new virus, because some of the patients had visited meat markets regularly. In order to confirm their hypothesis of an unknown virus causing the atypical pneumonia, many facts described by the medical and scientific literature were suppressed. There is a wide range of causes for atypical pneumonia besides the “infectious” explanation and, for several reasons, this type of pneumonia can end up being deadlier than the so-called “typical” version.

The “non-infectious” causes are, among others, the inhalation of toxic gases, solvents and other chemical products. Things like food, beverages or gastric content getting into the lungs due to swallowing problems or due to unconsciousness can lead to pneumonia (aspiration pneumonia). Even water on its own can cause an acute atypical pneumonia if it gets into the lungs. Other possible causes are associated with immunological disorders responsible for allergies and autoimmune reactions. Cancer treatments by means of radiation are known to cause lung inflammations indistinguishable from those associated with typical pneumonias. Elderly people also suffer from hypostatic pneumonia caused by water retention (oedemas), long periods of bed confinement and heart and/or kidney problems leading to insufficient aeration and irrigation of the lungs, inflammation and lastly to an atypical pneumonia.

Obviously, a combination of latent causes can have the same result. If initially no known pathogens are detected and the pneumonia is classified as atypical, it is common that at some point a secondary bacterial focus arises, which changes the classification and the pneumonia becomes “typical”. This is the reason why atypical pneumonias in relation to the typical ones probably amount to more than the 20-30% share attributed to the former. Simply put, most pneumonias are diagnosed at a later stage when bacteria are already present and not at the beginning, when these bacteria are absent.

The first two publications dealing with the corona virus³⁰ documented the medical examinations performed on five patients with pneumonia, but any other cause besides the viral explanation was ruled out beforehand. No hint or background information was investigated that might have taken into account the possibility of “non-infectious” causes like the ones that we have briefly mentioned. This is not something that virologists usually consider, and given the climate of panic in Wuhan, the members of the CCDC had no other choice but to look for a pathogenic virus. Focusing on an alleged viral cause influences how patients are going to be treated, as they are exposed to a cocktail of antibiotics with strong side effects that, in case of overdoses, can even kill the them.³¹ Extreme panic, especially when dealing with respiratory issues, can cause death all by itself, with no other causes. Panic can kill people rapidly, not only those with respiratory and cardiovascular problems.

The answer to the following question is key to put an end to the corona crisis: has a new virus been proved to exist or have the short genetic sequences that are inherent to the human body only been misinterpreted as components of a virus? The perpetrators of the current crisis are already claiming, the way they did during the H1N1 crisis over a decade ago, that the only solution is a vaccine. However, the concept of vaccination has been refuted just like the one about viruses.

A brief reminder of the nowadays forgotten 2009 swine flu pandemic will be very helpful for the assessment of the triggered and maintained corona crisis. Back then, most of the German population was eager to get vaccinated against the supposed virus causing the swine flu. The nationwide mass vaccination project had to be postponed due to the late delivery of the vaccines. Apparently, the vaccines could not be pre-filled in syringes as the adjuvants, that were being used for the first time, would have damaged the vaccine fluid. The proposed solution was to store the vaccine without the adjuvants in vials containing 10 doses and mix both shortly before the vaccination.

A scandal was lurking around the corner. It was eventually made public that the adjuvants, without which the vaccine has no effect whatsoever, had never been tested and to make things worse, that they were made out of nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are known to be very reactive due to their tiny size and they are widely used as catalysators in chemical reactions. Not to mention the fact that the human organism is not able to metabolize or to eliminate these nanoparticles easily. The story reached its climax as soon as the information spread among the public opinion that the chancellor Angela Merkel and the German army would get the same vaccine but without the adjuvants, while the police and the general population would be vaccinated with the vaccine containing nanoparticles that the human body cannot metabolize and eliminate.

In the end, 93% of the population rejected the vaccine, which was then administered to the other 7%. The overall refusal magically wiped out overnight all references to the virus in the media while the German government was busy burning millions of unused vaccine vials. (I would like to add a little joke: the paranoia surrounding the swine flu H1N1 not only vanished, but also the reports of new infections with it and the corresponding media coverage. One could conclude that the swine flu virus mutated into a fish flu virus, was then carried away by salmons only to end up in the Wuhan fish market and strike back with a vengeance).

The swine flu pandemic was not planned well enough to ensure massive vaccinations, but this did not prevent all involved epidemiologists, infectiologists and virologists to draw the necessary conclusions. They analyzed the causes and published their conclusions and recommendations for the future in the edition no. 12, dated December 2010, of the German Federal Health Bulletin under the meaningful title “Pandemics, Lessons Learned”. Which basically means: The lessons that we learned from the swine flu H1N1 failure!

Some of the articles included in that edition are available on the internet,³² however the most important ones are not to be found. Thus, the crucial recommendations for the management of a pandemic are the following:

• Making sure that experts do not contradict themselves in public discussions.
• Early involvement of mass and social media.
• Control of the internet. This is to avoid that any statement or criticism weakens the consensus and acceptance of the measures adopted by politicians in the name of society.

These recommendations were meticulously implemented this time. The internet is censored and critics are being kept at bay and discredited. Any argument that challenges the official truth about the pandemic and manages to reach the public opinion ... is ignored. In fact, each country has its own government speaker giving the daily update of the corona crisis. In Germany, Prof Drosten is the only chosen authority in the field. The only “criticism” that he had to face came from an HIV virologist and it was so weak that at the end the central statement concerning the existence of a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 was strengthened.

³⁰ See source 1 and: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China. Nature | Vol 579 | 12 March 2020 | 265-269.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

³¹ Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 420–22. Published Online February 17, 2020. https://doi. org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30076-X;
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30076-X/fulltext

³² Bundesgesundheitsblatt, edition Nr. 12, December 2010. Pandemien. Lessons learned https://link.springer.com/journal/103/53/12

Prof Christian Drosten, head of the Institute of Virology at the Charité Medical School in Berlin, claims to have developed a test since 1 January 2020 that allows the detection of the new corona virus in the human body in a reliable way.³³ The WHO started recommending the use of that test to China and to other nations on 21 January 2020, claiming that the testing method was indeed able to detect the presence of the new corona virus and thus it was able to determine the spreading of the virus.³⁴

In order to a) be able to understand the underlying hypothesis and the course of action behind Prof Drosten’s claims and in order to b) verify if his conclusions that he has developed a reliable testing method have been scientifically validated or not, or even if they have been refuted, we require additional explanations. We need to understand the meaning of the terms, the techniques and the details of his argumentation, as well as the two central publications that Prof Drosten is referencing.

• How are viruses and a corona virus defined?
• How are genetic sequences defined in this context?
• How do the detection methods of genetic sequences work that are labeled as PCR, RT-PCR and real-time RT-PCR?
• When can it be concluded that the presence of specific genetic sequences in the human body implies the presence of a virus?
• How is the existence of a virus scientifically demonstrated?

Concepts

• A virus is scientifically defined by its specific genome, which is unique for this virus.
• The genetic material of a virus is also called viral genetic strand, viral genetic molecule or genome (we will use the latter from now on).
• The genome of the virus contains a chain of different genetic sequences, the so-called viral genes, that produce the different viral proteins.
• The nucleic acid of a viral genome can be either RNA or DNA.
• The definition of corona viruses describes them as consisting of an RNA nucleic acid surrounded by a shell or capsid.
• The genome of a specific virus is defined by the exact determination of its length and the structural composition of its DNA or RNA strand.
• The composition of a viral genome results from the precise determination of the number and the specific sequence of the four building blocks that make up its genetic material, i.e. the nucleotides.
• The process for determining the specific sequence of nucleotides is called sequencing.
• The result of determining the sequence of nucleotides of a genome is described as sequence or as genetic sequence.
• Pathogenic viruses are defined as having a unique sequence which is not present in healthy organisms.
• In order to verify and determine the presence of a virus, and following the most fundamental rules of scientific reasoning, the virus needs to be isolated and displayed in its pure form in order to rule out that cellular genetic sequences are misinterpreted as components of a virus.
• The determination of the sequence of a given genetic material is only possible in the form of a DNA.
• In order to determine the sequence of an RNA genetic material, it needs to be biochemically transformed into DNA first.
• The process of transforming an RNA genetic material into DNA form is called “reverse transcription”, abbreviated as RT.

The techniques used by Prof Drosten and the first conclusions

• Gel electrophoresis is a reliable standard technique for detecting and determining the presence and length of genomes by dividing the DNA and RNA nucleic molecules lengthwise with the application of an electric current to the gel. The negative and positives charges on both ends make the molecules move through the gel, the larger molecules moving more slowly than the smaller ones, which ends up forming distinct bands on the gel according the size and length of the molecules. In order to determine more easily the length of the nucleic acids under study, nucleic acids with a known length are added for comparison.
• If the concentration of a specific genome is so low that the gel electrophoresis technique is not suitable anymore to determine its presence and size, the technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can rapidly make millions of copies of a very small DNA sample, that is, the PCR can “amplify” a small concentration and make it large enough to be examined. Thanks to this PCR technique, one can obtain enough material for further determination of the length and sequence of the DNA sample.

The inventor of the PCR technique, Karry Mullis, to whom the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1993 for this invention, indicated early on that this method was designed to be used in cleanrooms such as the ones available in semiconductor factories and, above all, that it was prone to error. In his award ceremony speech which can be read on the internet page of the Nobel Prize Committee, Mullis also pointed out that there was no scientific evidence that the genetic material defined as the genome of HIV can cause immunodeficiency or any other of the illnesses which are invalidly grouped under the name of a single illness called “AIDS” and treated with very toxic chemotherapy. He concluded that the theory of “HIV” causing immunodeficiency only arose due to scientific consensus-building.

The amplification of DNA by means of the PCR technique requires the prior knowledge of the composition (i.e. the sequence) of that DNA. A DNA can only be multiplied with the PCR technique if short, artificially produced DNA strands (called primers) are bound to the beginning and the end of the DNA, which exactly correspond to the sequence of the beginning and the end of the DNA to be multiplied. Primers are a small set of nucleotides (24 to 30 bases in length) that are attached at the beginning and at the end of the DNA and delineate the area that will be amplified. In other words, the prerequisite for using the PCR is to know exactly what is going to be amplified.

Once the above information is understood, it is easy to realize that the PCR method cannot detect or identify any unknown sequences or any unknown viruses. Only the prior determination of the sequence of a virus makes it possible for scientists to develop a specific PCR test designed to detect the given genetic sequence that belongs to a virus. In other words, the PCR test requires the preparation of a genetic “template”.

• At the early stages of the PCR technique, it was only possible to determine the amount of amplified DNA with the gel electrophoresis method only after having stopped the PCR amplification process. At present, certain dyes are added to the enzymes and substances required for PCR. The detection of these dyes during the PCR shows roughly what concentrations of artificially replicated DNA were created and roughly how much DNA was actually present at the start of the PCR. Since the amount of artificially generated DNA can be roughly determined while the PCR technique is running, this progress of the PCR technique is referred to as “real-time PCR”. A “real-time PCR”, which is preceded by another step, the conversion of RNA into DNA by means of “reverse transcription” (RT), is therefore called “real-time RT PCR”.
• The test that Prof Drosten invented for the detection of the corona virus is a “real-time RT PCR”. On 1 January 2020 he downloaded a database of short genetic sequences theoretically ascribed to the original SARS viruses. On the basis of these short genetic sequences, interpreted as possible constituents of SARS viruses, he developed the “template” for his test, that is, he designed the primers that would delineate the genetic sequences to be amplified by his “real-time RT PCR” test in order to detect the “still” unknown virus in China.

In the meantime, on 10 January 2020 and on 12 January 2020 the first preliminary compilations of genetic sequences related to the virus appeared on the internet, which were subsequently modified and published on 24 January 2020 and on 3 February 2020.³⁵ These publications represented the first attempts of the Chinese scientists to identify the unknown virus. The CCDC virologists used computer programs to theoretically combine the sequences of short genetic particles into a possible genetic strand. The virologists indicate however in both publications that they lacked the necessary evidences to claim that the proposed sequences could cause diseases. The proposed sequences were still preliminary and were not subjected to the strict processes of scientific review.

The crux of the matter is that the World Health Organization was already recommending on 21 January 2020 the PCR test developed by Drosten, that is, before the first publications of the Chinese experts containing the preliminary virus sequences even came to light on the 24 January 2020 and on the 3 February 2020. Why does all this myriad of dates matter? It shows that Prof Drosten used scientifically untested data for his rapidly globalized PCR test for the detection of the 2019-n CoV. This did not prevent the rapid expansion of the test which, with the acquiescence of the WHO, was starting to be used everywhere. On 7 February 2020,³⁶ the virus was renamed “SARS-CoV-2” with the cooperation of Prof Drosten.

This name change from “nCoV” to “SARS-CoV-2” gave the impression to the public opinion that the world was not facing a harmless or weak virus, but a pathogenic and very dangerous SARS virus that caused the illness that had killed the Chinese hero Li Wenliang, who had so courageously exposed what the Chinese government was trying to hide. Therefore, Prof Drosten and his colleagues fulfilled the horror scenarios and expectations of the population: “finally diagnosed”. These expectations originated with the wave of panic unleashed by Li Wenliang’s warnings and were endorsed by Drosten. We have to take into account the crucial fact that, at that time, the Chinese virologists involved in the research in Wuhan were pointing out – and they still do at present – that they had no evidence for claiming that the new virus was responsible for causing any illness. What if these genetic sequences under examination were present in some ill people, in healing processes of the body, after these processes, in some or many healthy people or even what if they could potentially show up in all humans?

This alone proves that Prof Drosten has crossed the clearly recognizable line between a scientifically justified action and an obvious and serious fraud. He will be unable to find an excuse by saying that he published his test procedure on January 23, 2020³⁷ in a scientific magazine which does not check the statements made therein before publishing them.

³³ Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Prof. Christian Drosten und Mitarbeiter.
Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):pii=2000045. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917. ES.2020.25.3.2000045. Published on 23 January 2020.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

³⁴ Diagnostika: Erster Test für neuartiges Coronavirus entwickelt. (Diagnostika: First test for the novel coronavirus developed).
Medica magazine 21.1.2020.
https://www.medica.de/de/News/Archiv/Diagnostika_erster_Test_f%C3%BCr_neuartiges_Coronavirus_entwickelt

³⁵ See source 30

³⁶ Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: The species and its viruses – a statement of the Coronavirus Study Group.
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.07.937862;

³⁷ See source 33

We need to ask ourselves if Prof Drosten has fulfilled his scientific duty – essential part of his employment contract³⁸ – and therefore if he has thoroughly verified all the claims included in his publication about the PCR detection method developed by him and, for that matter, all the public statements that he made in relation to this research.

The questions are the following:

1. Did Prof Drosten verify if the genetic sequences that he used as the basis for the development of his detection test actually come from a virus?
2. Did Prof Drosten carry out the mandatory control experiments to test his hypothesis that the genetic sequences used by him were constituents of a virus? Did he carry out these control experiments in order to rule out the possibility that these genetic sequences, ascribed to an alleged virus, were in reality particles arising during all metabolic processes, even present in plants such as papayas in Tanzania³⁹ or whose presence in human metabolism is increased during diseases?
3. On the basis of which hypothesis, experiments and control experiments can Prof Drosten conclude that his test is able to “detect” a complete, active and pathogenic virus when this test is only testing for the presence of 2 genes out of the 10 genes that theoretically constitute the genome of the corona virus?

How does Drosten know that he is not simply testing for fragments of a virus resulting from a successful “battle” of the immune system or for the presence of “defective”, “incomplete” and “harmless” viruses in our genome, that are considered to constitute 50% of the total genes of our chromosomes?

The answers are obtained from the documented actions of Prof Drosten during the development of his test and from his documented inaction until today.

The virologist Prof Drosten developed the test for the new corona virus (first known as 2019-nCoV and then since 7 February 2020 renamed SARS-CoV-2) and he described its development in a scientific paper that was published on 23 January 2020.⁴⁰ On page 3 of this paper, left column and 8th line from below, he describes the first and decisive steps that shaped his course of action: “Before public release of virus sequences from cases of 2019-nCoV, we relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak.”

To sum up, Prof Drosten and his colleagues relied on social media to assume that a SARS-related corona virus could be the cause of the atypical pneumonia outbreak. At that time there was no clinical data available that could support such claims. What was his next step?

“We downloaded all complete and partial (if>400 nt) SARS-related virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020.” It continues on the right column of the 3rd page, 3rd line from above: “These sequences were aligned [note from the author: by means of a predetermined SARS-virus standard sequence] and the alignment was used for assay design (Supplementary Figure S1). Upon release of the first 2019-nCoV sequence at virological.org, three assays were selected based on how well they matched to the 2019-nCoV genome (Figure 1).”

His statements give us clear answers, conclusions and consequences:

1. Did Prof Drosten verify if the genetic sequences that he used as the basis for the development of his detection test actually come from a virus?

The answer is no! By no means was he able to verify if the genetic sequences that he used for his test originated from a virus and, specifically, if they were related to the alleged virus in China due to the fact that the two Chinese publications dealing with the first clinical results were available only after the market launch of his test.

2. Did Prof Drosten carry out the mandatory control experiments to test his hypothesis that the genetic sequences used by him were constituents of a virus? Did he carry out these control experiments in order to rule out the possibility that these genetic sequences, ascribed to an alleged virus, are in reality particles arising during all metabolic processes, even present in plants or whose presence in human metabolism is increased during diseases?

The answer is no! Neither him nor the Chinese virologists working for the CCDC nor any other virologists have demonstrably carried out these necessary control experiments until today and if the opposite is true, at least they were not published. These experiments require the sequencing of short genetic sequences coming from the metabolism of healthy people. These sequences must undergo the same process than the ones isolated from supposedly infected people and used for the conceptual construction of a viral genetic strand, that is, with the same computer programs, the researchers should try to build a viral genetic strand out the short genetic sequences extracted from healthy people. Such an experiment was either never performed or never published. Even worse, such basic control experiments, which are not only mandatory according to the logic of virology but also necessary to assess experimental results, are not even mentioned. The results of such a control experiment would, on their own, bring the corona crisis to an end.

From a scientific perspective, another obvious control experiment would be to use the PCR method (real-time RT-PCR) to test as many clinical samples as possible coming from people with totally different symptoms and diseases than the ones ascribed to the corona virus, as well as to test clinical samples coming from both healthy people and plants or animals. The aim is to check if these samples also test “positive”. This PCR test is being used millions of times around the world. Control experiments are the only way to assess that this method has any validity, any reliability or any informative value and they are also the only way to make sure that you don’t have millions of cases of misdiagnosis around the world because it is defective and is testing people “positive” for other reasons rather than a virus. These control experiments have not been carried out until today, and no one is even claiming to have carried out such experiments. Maybe that is the reason why the inventors and manufacturers of these tests clearly indicate in their package leaflets that the tests are only suitable for study purposes and not reliable for clinical purposes.

I can forecast with certainty that those people with diseases affecting the ectodermal squamous epithelium tissue, like for example patients with a kidney condition, will test positive with Prof Drosten’s PCR method in 100% of the cases as soon as a smear sample is amplified a little and concentrated. There is a high chance that even all organisms can potentially test positive.

I appeal herewith to biochemists, bioinformaticians, virologists and cell culture specialists to encourage them to carry out the aforementioned control experiments, to publish the results and get in touch with me. I myself have designed a control experiment which discards from the very beginning the possible excuse that the genetic material might become contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 prior or after the control experiment.

The costs of the experiment will be covered in full if I am allowed to be present during the experiment together with some independent observers and if all steps are thoroughly recorded and documented. Please, we encourage you to get in touch with us, the contact information is available at the webpage of our publisher. The results will automatically put an end to the corona crisis, however, my own results of such control experiments have to be backed up by those of other scientists.

3. On the basis of which hypothesis, experiments and control experiments can Prof Drosten conclude that his test is able to “detect” a complete, active and pathogenic virus when this test is only testing for the presence of 2 genes out of the 10 genes that theoretically constitute the genome of the corona virus? How does Drosten know that he is not simply testing for fragments of a virus resulting from a successful “battle” of the immune system or for the presence of “defective”, “incomplete” and “harmless” viruses in our genome, that are considered to constitute 50% of the total genes of our chromosomes?

Prof Drosten does not seem to have taken into consideration such logical questions as there is no trace of them in his publications or statements. The detection of short genetic sequences assumed to be constituents of a larger viral genetic strand can never serve as evidence for the presence of a complete virus that is therefore capable of replication. The PCR test does not verify the presence of the complete genome of the alleged virus. It simply verifies the presence of a limited amount of shorter genetic sequences. In order for the PCR test to be considered a valid and reliable detection method, additional research should be undertaken to support the claim that the detection of short genetic sequences, assumed to be fragments of a virus, automatically shows the presence of a whole and intact viral genome. This kind of obvious and logical studies have been neither carried out nor mentioned to date.

Prof Karin Mölling, a leading virologist in the area of cellular particles grouped under the description “endogenous viruses”, also described as harmless, incomplete or defective viruses, considered the measures taken during the corona crisis as unjustified. She showed in her publications and even in a book⁴¹ that half of the human genome, in other words, half of the sequences constituting our chromosomes originate from inactive and defective viruses.

What she does not know, or maybe she is concealing it, is the fact that human metabolism constantly generates a huge amount of RNA genetic sequences of many types and compositions that do not show up in form of DNA sequences in the chromosomes. This fact alone questions any claims concerning the existence of all RNA viruses, such as the corona viruses, Ebola viruses, HIV, the measles virus and the SARS viruses.

This fact is also the reason why carrying out the control experiments that we proposed would not only bring the corona crisis to an end, but also the fear and medical malpractice caused by the science of virology dealing with alleged pathogenic viruses. I can assure that the real causes and phenomena of infection ascribed to viruses have a scientific explanation, in the positive meaning of the word “scientific”. I refer therefore to my previous article “The Virus Misconception Part I” published in German in the magazine WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2020 and which can be purchased in PDF format. Naturally, I also refer to the many other previous articles in the magazine dealing with this question.

Continuation of this article will follow.

³⁸ §2 Grundsätze Guter Wissenschaftlicher Praxis: (1) u.a. “alle Ergebnisse konsequent selbst anzuzweifeln“ und “die anerkannten Grundsätze wissenschaftlicher Arbeit in den einzelnen Disziplinen einzuhalten.“ (Principles of Good Scientific Practice: (1) amongst others “to question all results consequently” and “to observe the fundamental principles of scientific work as recognized in the individual scientific disciplines”) in: Neufassung der Satzung der Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin zur Sicherung Guter Wissenschaftlicher Praxis (Revised version of the statutes of the Charité – University Medicine Berlin for ensuring good scientific practice ) published June 20,2012 (AMB Charité Nr. 092, S. 658) available here in German:
https://www.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/portal/charite/presse/publikationen/amtl-mitteilungsblatt/2016/AMB_208.pdf

³⁹ An example of how the public opinion dealt with the news that even fruits tested positive for “SARS-Cov-2” can be found here in German: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-papaya-ziege-tansania-test-100.html
or here in English: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/coronavirus-tanzania-test-kits-suspicion-goat-pawpaw-positive-a9501291.html
or here https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/president-queries-tanzania-coronavirus-kits-after-goat-test-idUSKBN22F0KF

⁴⁰ Ver 9

⁴¹ See the book by Karin Mölling published under the interesting title “Viruses: More Friends Than Foes“, 420 pages, published in 2016 in German language.

The people of our cultural system are taught - something that is no longer questioned today and is regarded as a fact - that biological life came into being by chance, by molecules colliding and interacting with each other by chance. These molecules are presumed to have been created by atoms accidentally colliding with each other, which in turn are said to have been created out of nothing in a Big Bang. It is assumed that within a sphere of water, which is said to be held together by a shell of fats and proteins, so many molecules with certain properties came together in the distant past that the interactions of the molecules, called metabolism, would maintain and multiply this sphere itself.

This presumed model of a sphere, which despite all the assurances, pictures and schematic drawings in the textbooks has no correspondence in reality, is described as a cell. It is claimed that all life arose by chance from a simple primordial cell. After death, it is claimed that nothing else would remain except molecules, which can also decay back into atoms. Only those molecules that enter a cell are said to be part of life, everything else is dead, cold, even space is empty, all lacking any life force and independent interaction possibilities. Life, it is assumed, only developed into more complex organisms such as trees or humans because some accumulations of cells, so-called living beings, are stronger and more sophisticated in order to reproduce more quickly at the expense of others. If you look at the power and economic structures throughout the development of our cultural system until the present time, it is obvious that the respective attitude towards life and view of the opinion shapers continues to set the model for the concept of biological life.

Perhaps the most essential cause of this one-dimensional and dangerous world view is the mind, also so-called ‘rationality’, when it is considered absolute and the insights generated with it are not allowed to be questioned further. When the mind becomes the ruler and is not recognised and used as one of several available tools to approach the phenomena of life. In order to help us understand this and face this challenge, Jochen Schamal has written a basic introduction in his article “Mathematics and Reason” in this issue 3/2020 of w+, in which he has identified the core and fundamental challenge facing human beings. If the mind is used as an aide to humankind, everything is fine; if it is made absolute, we automatically end up ‘in Corona’, in manifest wars and in many areas of life, in self-perpetuating good-evil mechanisms. The undoubted effects of these good-evil mechanisms are interpreted by the mind as proof of the existence of an active principle of evil.

If we look at life “objectively” in the positive sense of the word, we see only creative processes of cooperation, of symbiosis, that express and increase the joy of life as the driving force for life. Even in the triggering of those processes that we wrongly interpret as diseases and as malignant, we find only helpful mechanisms and processes when we observe them objectively. Events or perceptions that are threatening or perceived as existentially threatening have been identified as the triggers. After they are triggered, the affected bodily functions, but also the processes of the psyche, perception and behaviour, increase or change in order to escape the situation or make it survivable. Where it makes sense, tissues are built up or broken down for this survival purpose.

In the recovery process, which commences instantaneously when the triggering event ceases to exist or the relationship to it can be put into perspective, the body then tries to restore the original form by breaking down or building it up again. Complications can arise because one or more triggers had a long and intensive effect, overlapped with other triggers, or new triggers were added through diagnostic shocks or resulting life circumstances. In these cases the healing and its known processes are made more difficult. Healing is also impeded if the triggering events are mentally and psychologically clung to and if deficiencies and poisoning are at work. In this issue of w+ we present the book Universal Biology, which introduces this point of view. These insights were gained by the physician Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer from 1981 onwards through very precise observations. Unfortunately, Dr. Hamer himself stood in the way of the dissemination of his constructive medical discoveries due to his unobjective polemics.

Dr. Hamer thus significantly developed the previous psychosomatic science, which had its peak in Germany in 1977 but lost its way in material attempts at interpretation. By individualising the observations, detached from biochemical and genetic attempts of interpretation and by discovering specific signals in the brain – specific for all physical and mental processes of triggering, healing and healing crises, this view became scientific. His observations and the explanations derived from them are verifiable, comprehensible, the processes are predictable, which is how correct diagnoses, causal therapy and effective prophylaxis are possible. Very importantly, this means that the negative death sentences “incurable” and “malignant” can be made accessible to understanding and lose their destructive effect.

It is understandable that people who only permit known and physical explanations for life, health, illness, recovery and old age as real, have difficulties with this view. The same applies to people who base their self-confidence and identity on this view or who derive their livelihood from it. In her article “What you and others can learn from Corona” in this issue of w+, Ursula Stoll shows why people react aggressively when confronted with another view and what you can do not only to avoid this but to awaken genuine interest in the other view. This is absolutely necessary. It is likely that we will only get out of the increasing self-mechanisms that led to the Corona crisis if a large majority of people open up to a better understanding and leave the destructive ideas and resulting mechanisms behind. From this perspective, Corona proves to be an opportunity for all and a turning point towards a leap in humanity’s development. It is unlikely and perhaps even dangerous if these new insights, which challenge the old view and the industries attached to it, are dictated or proposed “from above”.

Diseases, pain, even old age and death of the body are seen in “our” present, purely material world view as defects to be fought. Promises of cures and eternal life are regularly made, which the “grateful population” (Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy 1956) acknowledge with increasing sums of money for the promises. Since 1858, it has been supposed that all life arises from a cell as a result of purely material processes, but also all diseases, in that, the cell is said to produce disease products, disease venoms, in Latin viruses. Until 1951, the idea of a virus was defined as a disease agent, a toxic protein, a toxin. In the years before, some scientists did actual science, checked their assumptions, namely by control experiments. In doing so, they found two things: The decomposition of completely healthy tissues and organs also produces the same proteins as the decomposition of “diseased” material, which were misinterpreted as viruses. Furthermore, the method of animal testing rather than the proteins misinterpreted as viruses cause the symptoms that were interpreted as triggers and carriers of the disease.

Only a few doctors and only attentive readers of professional journals noticed that science, as it had often been in the past, was for a time without a fixed idea of what viruses actually are. The idea of viruses has always been used for this purpose: a failed attempt to explain actual phenomena that cannot be explained within the respective world view. Since the assertion and application of alleged virus testing procedures, the inherent mechanisms of fear generation have been running faster and faster. The creation of fear is becoming increasingly globally effective because of the industrialisation of the detection techniques and because of the market economy-induced synchronisation of “information.” The current result: a self-blockade of the industrialised countries and their population through an insane lockdown, which is justified pseudo-rationally, i.e. pseudo-scientifically. It has not yet become apparent and acknowledged that a purely rational approach to the phenomenon of life, which excludes compassion and other possibilities of perception, itself becomes a good-bad religion that wants the good, but creates the evil in the process. Any claim to absoluteness about life, about illness and recovery is dangerous and immediately leads to life-destroying consequences, even within the so-called Hamer system of knowledge, if it is set in absolute terms and viewed in isolation, because we, as participants in life, lack an overview of the whole.

Within this pure material cell theory of life, introduced in 1858 in an extremely unscientific way, which very quickly became the global basis of biology and medicine, a restricted view of the phenomena of life, a dangerous forced logic and a forced action automatically result. If I explain life purely materially, the triggers of age, deviations from normality (=diseases), the simultaneous or clustered occurrence of symptoms can and will be interpreted only as material defects and attributed to the action of assumed traveling disease agents. The disease processes and disease carriers have to be fought and suppressed within this idea. The notions of antibiosis, antibiotics, radiation, chemotherapy and isolation were therefore invented. In 1976, Ivan Illich showed in his book Medical Nemesis that medicine is also subject to the pressure of profit and therefore forces those involved to exaggerate. For this reason alone, medicine is automatically, insidiously and unnoticed, becoming more and more dangerous in many areas. This compulsion to exaggeration thereby also makes the false belief in the virus more and more dangerous.

The wrong hypothesis of the cell, with which the wrong assumption of the virus, which had previously been abandoned, was revived, constitutes the basis of the emergence not only of the infection, immune and gene theories, but also the dominant basis of our cancer medicine. Whoever regards cancer as error, arbitrariness, self-destruction of nature, believes in wandering evil, the idea of metastases, therefore also believes in flying metastases, aka viruses. Here the circle closes. Education and information about “Corona”, in which these crimes are not named, automatically strengthens these foundations and misconceptions, which have been the cause of Corona.

From the material view on life results another, deeper coercive logic, namely that of material heredity. It is assumed within the present science that only material interactions exist and all other explanations are unscientific and idiotic. Hence, the only possibility of thinking that remained led to a construction and function plan of life. One that contains instructions on how the alleged cell produces an organism with the help of its constituent molecules and the energy currents gathered in it. Until 1951 the prevailing public opinion claimed that proteins would carry the construction and functional plan of life. It was believed that proteins were the carriers of the hereditary substance. Within this imaginary world a hereditary substance MUST be claimed in order to be able to explain the origin of organisms from a cell. So also the claimed toxic proteins, the viruses, the pre-1951 definition of viruses, were attributed the property that they would also carry in their claimed protein toxin the blueprint to reproduce themselves.

Since 1952, when the idea that the hereditary substance is the material found in the nuclei of tissues and cells “finally” prevailed, there has been a change of ideas, the so-called paradigm shift, regarding viruses. Since this paradigm shift, viruses were and are claimed to be traveling genetic elements, which, after entering the cell, would force the cell to reproduce the virus. In this assumed multiplication, the cells are supposed to be damaged, thereby causing diseases. The class of molecules considered to be hereditary since 1952 are known as nucleic acids because they behave like a weak acid in aqueous solution and are mainly found in the center, the nucleus. Until the year 2000, it was believed that segments could be found in these molecules, some of which are very long, that would carry the blueprint for the construction and function of life. Genes were described as the smallest unit of the hereditary substance, and they were thought to carry the information about how proteins are constructed. However, the results obtained experimentally in biochemical genetics disproved all previous assumptions. In view of these results, no scientist and no one today is able to formulate a tenable definition of a gene that has not been disproved long ago.

In each nucleus the composition of the nucleic acids is constantly changing and for about 90% of our proteins no “genetic templates” can be found which could be called genes. The nucleic acid probably serves primarily as an energy releaser and only secondarily as a metabolic resonator and stabiliser. With the exception of some researchers, almost all employed biologists and physicians cling to the idea of a hereditary substance despite the known refutations because they simply have no other idea and their imagination suffers from pressure to conform and career anxiety. For this reason, the refutation of all previous assumptions about material heredity, virology should also have said goodbye for the second time long ago because the genetics underlying today’s virology turned out to be a misinterpretation.

A virus has been defined as a non-living pathogen consisting of a piece of dangerous hereditary substance made up of several genes, which can be found in an envelope or can be completely naked. The assumption is that this strand of genetic material enters a cell, the viral genetic material takes control of the cell and forces it to reproduce the virus, damaging or even killing first the cell and eventually the whole organism. It is thought that after multiplying, the virus leaves the damaged organism to damage other organisms. This theory is refuted by the refutation of the cell theory, since life is mainly organised in interconnected tissues and in reality there are very few structures that can be called cells [*see translator’s note]. The virus theory is refuted by the refutation of genetics. The virus theory is refuted by an improved understanding of biology, the discovery of those symbiotic processes in disease, healing and the healing crises which confirm through all previous observations that existentially long-lasting events or perceptions trigger the potentially multiphasic processes which have hitherto been misinterpreted as different diseases. Knowledge of biology refutes virology. In real life there is no principle of evil that merely takes and gives nothing.

Virology claims to isolate viruses in the laboratory and from claimed isolated particles, claims to find the genetic material to determine their structure. In no publication claiming an isolation of a virus is there a description of an actual structure that has been isolated. On the contrary, experimentally produced death of tissues in the laboratory is misinterpreted as the effect of viruses because it is assumed that the tissues would die because supposedly infected body fluids are added. In reality, the tissues die because they are no longer nourished and are killed by toxic antibiotics. Never, except for the measles virus trial, have the tissue control experiments been carried out that disprove the virus assumption, because the tissues always die from starvation and poisoning without the need to add additional supposedly infected material.

On the basis of a single publication from 1954 [https://pubmed-info.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/propagation-in-tissue-cultures-of-cytopathogenic-agents-from-patients-with-measles.pdf], the decayed tissue is assumed to transform into viruses when it dies. In this publication, it is emphasised several times that the assumption of tissue death due to a virus and the assumed transformation of the tissues into viruses is only speculation that would have to be proven or disproven in the future. It was only through the subsequent Nobel Prize for the first author, John Franklin Enders, for an earlier speculation within the old, protein-toxin virology, that this tissue-to-virus conversion speculation became a supposed scientific fact and the sole basis of the new, genetic virology.

The model for the new virology was and is from the bacteriologist John Franklin Enders – the discovery of tiny structures called phages that are only visible using the electron microscope, into which highly inbred, i.e. incestuous, bacteria transform when their metabolism breaks down. This transformation is not an act of destruction, but a metamorphosis, similar to when bacteria gradually lose their conditions for living and form their permanent forms, the spores. These are also tiny, much smaller than bacteria. Spores can change back into bacteria when the living conditions are optimised again. Phages, on the other hand, offer their nucleic acid to other organisms, which they thus help to live and do NOT kill or harm. Phages are nevertheless regarded as the viruses of bacteria, although phages are never able to damage or kill naturally occurring bacteria or freshly isolated bacteria. It is very likely that bacteria will develop again from phages if the environment for this is provided. I have isolated and studied a phage-like structure from the sea, one that algae produce especially when their living conditions are no longer optimal. Phages formed during the transformation of a specific, highly inbred, i.e. an incestuous bacterial species, always have the same structure, the same size, the same composition and always an equally long and equally assembled nucleic acid. The nucleic acid, which always has the same length and composition, became the model for the new virus idea, the gene-virus theory, according to which a virus is a piece of enveloped or naked genetic material of a certain length and composition.

Phages are isolated quite easily from which their nucleic acid is extracted, which always has the same composition. In the case of “genetic viruses” this is never the case: no nucleic acid is ever taken from the few structures that can be visualised under the electron microscope and are passed off as viruses. The nucleic acid is explicitly always extracted from the fluids in which the dying tissues were located. Crucially, a whole nucleic acid is never found that has the length and composition of those schematic drawings and descriptions of nucleic acids that virologists pass off as the genetic strand or genome of their respective viruses.

Any interested layman will find in any claim of existence or isolation of disease-causing viruses that a long nucleic acid is theoretically constructed from very short pieces of nucleic acid released when tissues die, which is then passed off as viral nucleic acid in complete deception of both the scientist and everyone else. This laborious composition of the assumed viral nucleic acid, which can only be accomplished with fast computers and was much more cumbersome and done by hand at the beginning of gene virology, is called alignment. Every layman recognises from the word alignment that a long, supposedly viral nucleic acid was only ever constructed theoretically. Never does the claim appear that from a (viral) structure or even from an “infected” liquid, an even remotely complete nucleic acid has been found, the determination of whose molecular sequence would correspond to the whole, only theoretically constructed nucleic acid.

Here the effective coercive logic to which virologists have been subject since 1954 becomes clear, when the assumption was made that tissues could also transform into viruses when they die, as very specific incestuously created bacteria do when they transform into phages, those helpful structures that are misinterpreted as viruses of bacteria. Since short pieces of nucleic acids, from which the postulated disease-causing viruses, the viral hereditary strands are only mentally constructed, are found in every living being, all humans and animals can test “positive”, depending on the quantity and collection location of the sample to be tested. The more that is tested, the more positive results are produced, although such a test result does not and cannot have any significance for either health or disease.

In the case of Corona, it is particularly easy to see how virologists deceived themselves and others, which in this case escalated into global hysteria and the Corona crisis through the actions of the German virologist Prof. Christian Drosten. In an attempt to get a grip on the panic of a new outbreak of SARS triggered by a hysterical ophthalmologist, the virologists of the Chinese government theoretically constructed a nucleic acid strand in the record time of one week by means of computer programmes, which they said was almost identical to harmless and difficult-to-transmit bat viruses. They used only nucleic acids contained in the fluid of a bronchial wash obtained from a person who died with pneumonia. In doing so, they did not use “cell cultures” in the laboratory to supposedly infect them in order to harvest the presumed virus from them as is common practice, nor did they claim to have obtained this nucleic acid from an isolated structure.

It is likely that the following is why the Chinese virologists theoretically constructed the nucleic acid of a “harmless” virus: in order to get a grip on the wave of fear triggered by the ophthalmologist of a believed new outbreak of the dangerous corona virus SARS epidemic which might have resulted in the immediate overload of hospitals. Prof. Drosten, on the other hand, did not wait until the Chinese scientists published the final composition of their nucleic acid on 24.1.2020 to develop a test procedure to detect this allegedly new viral nucleic acid using the PCR method. In order to develop his test procedure, he selected completely different nucleic acids, which he knew to be present in every human being, even before the preliminary data on the alleged new viral gene sequence from China was published on 10 January 2020. These pieces of nucleic acids he selected, which do not come from the (constructed) genome strand of the Chinese virus, are the basis of his test procedure.

The biochemicals to detect the pieces of nucleic acids selected by Prof. Drosten by means of PCR - which do not originate from the Chinese virus model - were sent free of charge on 11.1.2020, “for humanitarian reasons”, to precisely these places where it was known that returnees from Wuhan were being tested. Positive test results were thus obtained from travellers from Wuhan, which were presented to the public from 20.1.2020 as proof of human-to-human transmission of the alleged new virus. The Chinese government had to bow to public pressure to accept a new epidemic because of this apparent evidence, although all of the 49 people in Wuhan with pneumonia of unknown origin were proven not to have infected family members, friends or hospital staff with whom they were in close contact.

There are no disease-causing viruses and, with knowledge of real biology, they cannot exist. Viruses are only constructed mentally by putting together very short pieces of nucleic acids, purely theoretically, into long pieces. These long mental constructs, which do not exist in reality and have never been discovered, are passed off as viruses. The process of mentally stringing together very short pieces of nucleic acid into a theoretical and long nucleic acid is called alignment.

Since short pieces of nucleic acids, of which viruses are thought to be composed, are released during all inflammatory processes, tissue formation, degradation and death, it is clear that all people who experience inflammatory processes, tissue formation, degradation or death and from whom tissues and fluids are collected for testing will test “positive” with the nucleic acid detection technique PCR.

Similarly, people automatically test positive if, when tested by swabbing,

1. too many mucous membranes are damaged,
2. there is haemorrhaging as a result,
3. the very sensitive olfactory bulb, a part of the brain, is mechanically injured in the nasal cavity, or
4. simply a very large sample volume is taken,

because in the body, even in every natural body of water and in all seas, an astonishingly intensive build-up and degradation of nucleic acids of all kinds is constantly taking place. Among them are always those from which the only apparent genetic strand of the virus was mentally constructed. The PCR virus test only detects very short nucleic acids that are claimed to be part of a virus.

The test procedure to detect the alleged new Corona virus was developed by Prof. Christian Drosten even before the nucleic acid of the alleged new Corona virus was “decoded.” The Chinese virologists who had mentally constructed the nucleic acid of the alleged new virus using alignment, claimed that it has not been proven that this virus has the potential to produce diseases. They assumed that the new virus was very similar to harmless and difficult-to-transmit viruses in animals.

The “positive” results of Prof. Drosten’s PCR test were used to justify the claim that the new virus was “definitely” detected and that there was easy human-to-human transmission. These rash actions of Prof. Drosten had the effect of escalating a local SARS hysteria in Wuhan (triggered by an ophthalmologist) to a global Corona crisis.

* For further information on the refutation of traditional cell theory, see previous articles in wissenschafftplus.de

In 1964, Prof. Shoi Yamashita began to clarify the question of what the plant does to turn a bud into either a leaf or a flower. He suspected a material cause, a hormone that the plant produces. His reasoning was that if the plant did not produce the suspected hormone florigen, or did not produce it at that point, the bud would automatically become a leaf. The suspected hormone has not been found to date. What Prof. Yamashita discovered was that the tissue fluid at the bud changed when it became a flower. The fluid became measurably more energetic, which was repeated at the plant sites whenever a bud became a flower. He found that the energy content and composition of the flower-forming tissue fluid of plants is similar to the tissue fluid of humans.

Prof. Yamashita, together with Dr Shinji Makino, then tried to find out how the plant achieves this energy gain. He found out that the plant uses certain minerals for this purpose and recognised that these consist of two differently charged forms of iron. They succeeded in copying this process and applying it technically. To do this, they used certain iron compounds and molecules that make up proteins. They combined these different compounds to form a complex that becomes active by itself in water and enriches the water with energy. This makes it possible to measurably energise any water. They were able to demonstrate the energy gain using two physical techniques. They called the water that was energetically enriched with this technique PI water. Extensive experiments were carried out with this PI water in agriculture, medicine and technology.

The documented successes of the increase in productivity, quality, health and performance enhancement are more than astonishing.⁴² However, the two researchers were faced with a puzzle. They had no explanation and could not come up with a theory as to where the measurable energy increase in the PI water process comes from and how the enormous increase in quantity and quality in agriculture, in health and technical performance improvements can be explained by the use of PI water. They consequently assumed an unknown form of cosmic energy as the source of the proven energy increase. In the end, they were right, because the energy in PI water comes from the sun and from the cosmos. But in science, they lost credibility and interest because of it. The inexplicability of the PI mechanism led to the discontinuation of PI research in basic university research.

In 1996, the son of the Japanese emperor honoured a conference of PI researchers with his presence and a report on his personal, positive experiences with PI water. After that, the topic also disappeared from the public eye. In 1996, the PI water company Maunawai was given the rights to distribute PI water for Europe. Maunawai means mountain spring in Hawaiian. The company facilitates basic research and the further development of PI Water technology. One result of the research funding is the following explanation of how water is energised with the PI technique. This explanation came about by relating the findings on PI water and those of the biologist Dr Augustin. In this light, the PI mechanism was recognised as an essential process in the materialisation of biological life from water.

⁴² The Miracle of Pi-Water. The revolutionary technology of water that will save our planet and its people. Makino, Shinji. Book, 138 pages. Japan, 1994. USA, 1999.

Fig. 1: Lenard frame: The movable part of the Lenard frame is pulled upwards by the surface membrane contracting when the weight is removed. It expands again when water is offered to it.

Fig. 2: The membrane has the basic properties of life: contraction and growth.

Fig. 3: Water strider: The membrane on the water, which produces surface tension, carries insects weighing up to 20 grams on tiny contact points.

Fig. 4: Elementary substance: The force stored in the substance of surface tension can be represented by depicting the pressure of 130,000 atmospheres, with which liquid water is compressed as a water column of a height of 1.3 million metres.

Fig. 5: Iron II / Iron III: Certain iron compounds change their charge state in rapid succession. Doubly charged iron becomes triply charged and back again. Doubly charged iron is water-soluble and triply charged iron is fat-soluble and releases the substance of the surface membrane into the environment. The energy for this comes from, among other things, existing heat, infrared radiation and probably all forms of energy and radiation.

A discovery in 1986 by Dr Peter Augustin explains the increase in energy in the PI water process.⁴³ Dr Augustin recognised that the membrane, which forms the surface tension on the water, is rich in energy and has the basic properties of life. It contracts and can also expand again, i.e. grow. Dr Augustin recognised this with the help of a simple measuring device, the Lenard frame, with which the rupture tension of the water surface membrane can be measured. Measurements and knowledge of the surface tension of water are crucial for many technical applications. He recognised that the thin membrane contracts with strong force and also expands again by itself when water is made available to it for this purpose. Dr Augustin recognised that the surface tension membrane consists of a different substance than liquid water. Only fat-soluble substances dissolve in it, whereas only water-soluble substances dissolve in liquid water. By determining the density, the quotient of volume and mass, he found that this substance has the density of about 1.4 kg per litre. Liquid water has its greatest density of just under 1 kg per litre at 4 degrees Celsius. By weighing the mass and determining the volume, he found that living tissue always has a significantly higher density than liquid water.

He found that the high density of living tissue does not result from the fact that more minerals or other substances dissolve in the tissue. He determined the density of pumpkin seeds germinating in distilled water and found that before germination, they are clearly lighter than water and therefore float; at the moment of germination, they have a density of approx. 1.4 kg/litre. From this, he concluded that the dense substance that makes up the surface membrane accumulates in the germ.

In physics, it has been calculated that liquid water can compress to a density of about 1.4 kg per litre at a pressure of 130,000 bar. In 2010, a researcher transformed frozen water at -130 degrees Celsius with a pressure of 1,000 atmospheres into a liquid with a density of 1.4 kg per litre. He found that the liquid was viscous.⁴⁴ In 2018, Swiss researchers realised that this viscous water is fat-soluble, i.e. quite different from liquid water.⁴⁵ They thus confirmed the observations and results of the researchers of the 19th century and those of Dr Augustin, who found that the liquid that makes up tissues and cells is viscous and fat-soluble.⁴⁶

With the evidence that water transforms into a dense and thus energy-rich substance under pressure, the gain in energy in the PI-water process can be explained. Through the germination experiments and the high density thus achieved, the assumption is confirmed that the substance that makes up the surface tension membrane is the same substance that water transforms into through high pressure. Surface tension can be increased by dissolving suitable substances or by creating the substance that makes up the membrane of surface tension. However, the iron complex discovered in plants does not release substances that can increase surface tension, because the PI process does not exhaust itself and is detectable even with small amounts of the particular iron-protein complex.

This explains the energy gain in PI water generation by the mechanism of surface generation postulated by Dr Augustin. For Dr Augustin, in addition to movements of all kinds, it was especially the turbulence, the rhythmic movements of the proteins, that accomplish the release of the dense, energy-rich substance. What he overlooked is that it is the iron II/iron III compounds that, through their constant, rhythmic change in constitution, fat and water solubility, bring the fat-soluble energy-rich substance out of the polar liquid water. PI water is therefore water that is enriched with the energy-rich surface substance. It is conceivable that other mineral complexes are also involved in this process of energy release.

What the Japanese researchers have overlooked is that biology does not only carry out this process in plants, but in all living organisms. Important enzymes in the metabolism of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, non-protozoa and all complex organisms use enzymes in their energy metabolism that have iron as a central and active element in their active centre. Iron plays the decisive role in the red blood pigment of the haemoglobin of the red blood cells,⁴⁷ in the myoglobin of the muscle, the cytochromes, etc., to name but a few. Even the vitamin B12 produced by bacteria uses iron to release energy from water.

In terms of mass, iron is the second most abundant element on earth and wherever iron is present, forms certain complexes and water is present, the building and energy substance of life is released. The earth is alive. Since the fusion of elements in the stars always results in iron, the whole universe is full of water and surface membrane substance, which holds it together and binds everything, even our sun is probably made of this substance, since it has the density of 1.41 kg per litre, it is reasonable to assume that life is everywhere. Since water and its dense substance, which emerges from it and turns back into water while releasing energy, has been proven to absorb, store and release information of all kinds, there is now also a concrete idea that everything is connected to everything else. Also the processes of consciousness, of feeling and perhaps even of thinking.

Viktor Schauberger‘s findings about water, especially the effects and descriptions of the formation of vortices and the enormous forces that then emerge from the water,⁴⁸ can now be better understood through the knowledge of the original substance, the elementary substance. Likewise, with this knowledge, the phenomenon of healing currents described by Bruno Gröning⁴⁹ and the concrete descriptions of energy and healing processes by the physician Franz Anton Mesmer (1734 to 1815)⁵⁰ can be understood.

It is clear to me that the tangible healing current is the flow of dense substance in tissues and nerves, which Chinese philosophy and medicine calls chi.

The much-vaunted Aquarian Age can now begin or has it always existed and only a few have felt this way? In the following, further research results are shown that prove the Augustinian primordial substance theory of life and give an outlook on the importance of the synthesis of Augustinian knowledge with Japanese research by Shoi Yamashita, Shinji Makino and their colleagues.

⁴³ PI water. Lanka, Stefan. WissenschafftPlus No. 6/2016.

⁴⁴ Glass-liquid transition of water at high pressure. Ove Andersson. PNAS July 5, 2011 108 (27) 11013-11016;
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016520108

⁴⁵ Beyond freezing: amorphous water in biomimetic soft nanoconfinement. Livia Salvati Manni, Salvatore Assenza, Michael Duss, Jijo J. Vallooran, Fanni Juranyi, Simon Jurt, Oliver Zerbe, Ehud M. Landau, Raffaele Mezzenga. Manuscript submitted for publication on 16.10.2018

⁴⁶ See 43

⁴⁷ See 43

⁴⁸ Das Wesen des Wassers [The Essence of Water]: Original texts. Viktor Schauberger. 4th edition, 2014.

⁴⁹ Der gottväterliche Ritterschlag – Bruno Grönings Berufungserlebnis zum Wunderheiler [The Godfatherly Accolade – Bruno Gröning‘s Vocational Experience as a Miracle Healer]. Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus 5/2016. And: Psyche-Gehirn-Organ-Heilkunde und Körper-Seele-Geist-Heilung. Die Nacht der großen Heilung und der Tag, an dem die Krokusse blühen. Teil I und II [Psyche-brain-organ healing and body-soul-spirit healing. The night of the great healing and the day when the crocuses bloom. Parts I and II]. Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus 6/2017 and 1/2018.

⁵⁰ Mesmer – Magier und Techniker einer kosmobiologischen Heilkunde [Mesmer – Magician and technician of a cosmobiological medicine]. Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus No. 6/2018.

Fig.6: PI water: Stagnant water has a low energy content, can quickly tip over and thus become undrinkable. Moving water has more surface substance, thus more energy. PI water constantly forms energy because the active iron complexes constantly produce energy-rich substance and release it into the water. This explains why PI water stays fresh longer and tastes better than bottled water without the corresponding iron complexes.

Water, as we have learned so far, can take three different forms, which are called phases: liquid, gaseous and ice. That there is a fourth phase of water has been pointed out by Prof. Gilbert Ning Ling since 1958. Prof. Gerald Pollack has taken up and expanded his findings. He has proven and visualised that water can take on a fourth form, a fourth phase, which behaves quite differently from liquid water. This fourth phase of water is formed as a thin layer wherever water makes contact with surfaces. Because this layer is fat-soluble and displaces polar, water-soluble substances, he called this layer the exclusion zone. This substance is more energetic than liquid water.⁵¹ It may be concluded that this substance is identical to the substance of the thin membrane of the surface tension of water and the viscous substance that can be produced by pressure and the viscous substance that tissues and cells consist of. Depending on the energy content of the water, this layer and thus the surface tension of the water is of varying thickness. This can be used to explain that water has different energy contents regardless of the temperature and substances dissolved in it.

It follows that all techniques that move water, especially those that form vortices, enrich the liquid water with the substance of the surface membrane, thus making it richer in energy, i.e. energising it. The saying movement is life takes on a deeper meaning through this perspective. Wherever life moves or is moved, water comes into contact with surfaces or, by flowing and forming vortices, creates inner surfaces and thus the energetic surface substance, with which biological life forms, moves and grows.

⁵¹ Wasser – viel mehr als H₂O [Water – much more than H_²O]. Gerald H. Pollack. Book, 368 pages, 2nd edition 2015.

Fig. 7: Electron microscopy of the cell – membranes: Cells, cut into slices for electron microscopic imaging, must have thicker membranes when cells are cut at an angle or at their ends. This is not the case; the membranes appear equally thin everywhere.

Fig. 8: EM of the cell – receptors, pores and ion pumps: No electron microscope images of cells shows structures in the membrane that according to cell theory, should be very numerous there: Pores, ion pumps and receptors that, in cell theory, are crucial for cell communication and metabolism.

Fig. 9: Caulerpa: a unicellular organism without a cell. Since, under the influence of the cell theory, today‘s scientists can only imagine life in cells, all the many organisms, in which no cells are seen but many free nuclei and bacteria, are called unicellular organisms. Caulerpa is found in all seas and in many marine aquariums, because it is very robust.

Fig. 10: Tissue: Through today‘s techniques of living tissue observation, it turns out that tissues themselves are alive, contain nuclei and bacteria that move freely within them. At their edges, tissues form tissue cut-offs, from which new tissues can emerge, but also stem cells, which then form the actual free cells. The large part of “cells” are in fact tissue constrictions that are intimately connected and have only been misinterpreted as single and freely moving cells due to previous representation techniques.

Professors Gilbert N. Ling, Gerald H. Pollack and other water researchers assume that this fourth phase of water has completely different properties than liquid water, but is water in principle. They explain the completely different properties by a rearrangement of its molecules that has not been understood and cannot be explained so far. Dr Augustin assumes that this substance is a substance in its own right: the primordial substance of life, from which all elements, molecules and biological life arise. At first, he called this substance dense water, but very quickly realised that this name is misleading. The name tempts one to recognise this substance as a special form of water and not as an independent form.

I have proposed the term elementary substance, because Dr Augustin‘s arguments are convincing that all elements that exist also emerge from this substance. More on the aspect of element formation from this substance in a future post. I favour Peter Augustin‘s view that this substance is a substance in its own right, from which biological life is formed and provide arguments and references below that strengthen this view.

Since 1972, Prof. Harold Hillmann and his colleagues have pointed out that cells cannot look the way they are depicted in graphs. The graphics depict cells filled with water and surrounded by a double-layer membrane. Hillmann & colleagues have evaluated hundreds of thousands of electron microscope images of cells and found several things at once: Double-layered membranes were never seen, but always only a fine rim. What all electron microscopists have overlooked is that the membrane must appear in its “correct” thickness when the cell is cut apart in the middle for the electron microscope image and thicker when the cell is cut at an angle or at its curved end. The result is sobering: the membrane is always the same thickness in all images.

Either the massive changes in the cells during preparation for electron microscopic examination produce a destruction of the original structure and/or the force of the electron beam destroys the cell structure the moment it hits the sample to be viewed. The explanation that tissues and cells consist of a dense, fat-soluble and viscous substance without a membrane border can explain these facts established by Hillmann. When the electron beam hits the samples to be examined, the resinous substances and the metallic contrast agents, in which the tissues and cells were embedded for the examination, evaporate and always produce a thin fringe around the spherical structures. The diameter of this seam is also thinner than the specifications given by the researchers, who produce and examine artificial cell membranes.

The assumption that cells consist of the dense substance recognised by Augustin is further supported by the fact, named by Hillmann & colleagues, that on no electron microscope (EM) image of cells are the pores and ion pumps seen, which, according to the prevailing cell theory, must be present for the cell to be able to do this if it were made of water. Also missing from all EM images are the receptors, with which the cells would supposedly communicate and present themselves to the postulated immune system as either intrinsic, extrinsic or degenerate.⁵²

My assumption that cells and tissues consist of this dense substance explains effortlessly and better than before the observed properties and performances of bacteria, cells, tissues, hormones, blood, lymph, nerves and brain. This assumption also provides an explanation as to why the lung tissue itself only engages in fat metabolism and does not supply itself with carbohydrates: in order to be able to optimally absorb the elementary substance found in the air in bubble form. This is fat-soluble, condenses into mist when cooled and into the liquid water of the droplets of rain when energy is released. When this happens over the Alps, we have the Föhn here at Lake Constance.

The assumption that tissues and cells consist of the elementary substance is explained by further observations: the properties and composition of amoebae and tardigrades and of many organisms that can grow up to several metres in size, in which no cells can be detected.

In them, the nuclei and the oxygen-breathing bacteria, the mitochondria, float freely in a viscous substance. Cells are only formed for special purposes, e.g. sexual reproduction. A prominent and well-studied example is the metre-sized marine alga Caulerpa, which reproduces mainly by separating parts of it and living on at will.

This gives a completely different picture of the structure and function of organisms, even if they are called multicellular organisms, such as plants, animals and humans. In the case of plants, the name multicellular organism is refuted by the fact that all “cells” only appear as individual cells because of their stabilising environment. In reality, they are all connected by openings in the hard environment. Many “cells” of animal “multicellular organisms” only look like single cells, because the tissue, through the techniques of tissue isolation, fixation, tissue staining, and the dying of the tissue, actually look quite different than they do in textbook graphics and in our imagination. In the analysis of the light microscopic representations, Prof. Hillmann and colleagues have also refuted the previous views on the appearance and shape of the cells.⁵³

Even before Hillmann & Co, researchers discovered that it is impossible to speak of cells in the heart muscle. They are so closely interlocked with each other that it is impossible, with the best will in the world, to tell where a cell should begin and where it should end. This is ultimately the case with all “cells”, except for the few real cells that can move freely in the body. These free cells can also only maintain themselves in the semi-liquid or liquid tissue of the blood. This aspect has not occurred to cell biologists, although they know that “cells” in the test tube can only maintain themselves in the liquid tissue of an embryonic blood serum. To date, not all components and mechanisms of the embryonic serum are known, because it has not been possible to develop an artificial serum, in which “cells” could live outside the body.

Meanwhile, the results of stem cell research provide very clear evidence that all those involved in cell theory since 1858 have missed the essential point. The tissue forms stem cell niches, in which the stem cells form. Only from the stem cells do the cell types that we regard as cells develop. Stem cells always look different from cells, divide differently, behave differently. They constantly form tissue, which must be constantly and artificially dissolved in the test tube so that these immortal “cells” can exist at all. From this point of view, stem cells are not “immortal cells”, but tissue specialisations that are artificially prevented in the test tube from reuniting to form tissues, in which the nuclei, bacteria (mitochondria, etc.) and other components can move freely.

Some researchers in basic research have long recognised that the “cell bodies” are so strongly connected at their edges with the fluid (cell plasma) of the other “cells” that their boundaries cannot be determined. Depending on the observation technique, they form a constantly changing network of connections that range from small to large diameters.⁵⁴ These constantly changing networks have been misinterpreted in electron microscope section images – for which the tissue must be embedded in synthetic resin, chemically fixed, stained and cut into thin slices – as typically tiny to huge cell particles or as viruses, depending on the point of view. Even the inventor of the idea of the AIDS virus HIV, Robert Gallo seems to be backing down, publishing in 2016 that cell particles hardly differ from viruses.⁵⁵

The following picture emerges from this: It is not cells that give rise to the “dead” tissues, but living tissues give rise to tissue stubs at their edges that appear as cells in the microscope, although only very few are actually self-sufficient and can only live for a certain time. These pinch-offs of tissue, called stem cells, constantly form new tissue, so that from a “cellular” point of view it looks as if (stem) cells form the tissues. From today‘s point of view, made possible by living observation techniques, it looks different. The tissues live and form cells, like the egg tissue of the so-called oocytes, which only becomes a cell-forming tissue through fusion with the tissue of the seeds.

Probably under the influence of the otherwise strictly concealed findings of Prof. Hillmann and colleagues, the fact has at least crept into the textbooks that there are no postulated cord rings on the myelinated nerve cells outside the brain, which, according to theory, should be there in order to explain the conduction of the so-called nerve impulses. It is admitted that in the meantime it has been recognised that the lacing rings do not exist outside the brain. The cytoplasm of the “Schwann‘s cells” is so strongly interlocked at these points that the claimed distance and interruption between two “Schwann‘s cells” does not exist.⁵⁶ “Mein liber Schwann! [My goodness]” In fact, it was Rudolf Virchow who failed to recognise the superficiality of Theodor Schwann‘s observations and adopted them in his theory when he invented the cell theory of life in 1858, which still dominates today. The misinterpretations that cells consist of liquid water and are surrounded by a membrane go back to Schwann.⁵⁷

It is again Prof. Hillmann, who recognised and rediscovered what is probably Rudolf Virchow‘s only correct, self-developed insight, that the brain is 50% to 80% in a semi-fluid tissue state, in which nuclei and bacteria move freely. Virchow called this substance of the brain glia. Three types of glia cells are interpreted into this mass, which have not yet been proven by microscopic techniques.⁵⁸ Virchow abandoned this finding in favour of his cell theory. He completely abandoned his cell theory and medicine at the age of 49, although at that time not a single question of disease and cure had been clarified.⁵⁹

⁵² Evidence-Based Cell Biology with Some Implications for Clinical Research. Harold Hillmann. Book 2008, 590 pages. Shaker Verlag GmbH

⁵³ See 52

⁵⁴ Die Nano-Tunnel der Zellen [The nano-tunnels of cells]. Vivian Callier. Spektrum.de dated 10.10.2018.

⁵⁵ Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives? Esther Nolte-‘t Hoen, Tom Cremer, Robert C. Gallo and Leonid B. Margolis. Proceedings of the American Society of Science. PNAS | August 16, 2016 | vol. 113 | no. 33 | 9155-9161. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1605146113

⁵⁶ http://www.embryology.ch/allemand/vcns/histogenese04.html

⁵⁷ See 43

⁵⁸ A radical reassessment of the cellular structure of the mammalian nervous system. Harold Hillmann. Article, 2011. 40 pages, freely accessible on the Internet.

⁵⁹ Rudolf Virchow, ein Stratege der Macht. Teil 1 und Teil 2 [Rudolf Virchow, a strategist of power. Part 1 and Part 2]. Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus No. 5/2015 and No. 6/2015 and Entwicklung von Medizin und Menschheit [Development of Medicine and Humanity]. Stefan Lanka. WissenschafftPlus No. 6/2015

Fig. 11: Heart/circulation/nerves: The primary task of the arterial circulation is to produce the dense elementary substance by swirling the blood as the heart forms and releases vertebral bodies of blood. These release the elementary substance formed at the edges of the vertebral bodies, which is taken up by the lining of the arteries and conducted into the tissues and nerves. From the transformation of the veins, the dense elementary substance is absorbed, a portion is released into the nerves and a portion – with heat release and volume increase through the release of water – is released into the veins. The increase in volume moves the venous blood passively to the heart, which is made possible by non-return valves that only exist in the veins.

Dr Augustin‘s findings made it comprehensible where the energy of the iron complex, which is released in the PI process, comes from. It follows that exactly the same thing happens in the red blood cells, since here too an iron complex is active in the same way.⁶⁰ From this and from other observations and experiments, it may be concluded that the main task of the nerves is the transport of the dense and energy-rich elementary substance. This leads to another, primary task of the brain: the central reception, control and distribution of the flows of energy-rich elementary substance through the brain.⁶¹

The presence and different distribution of the dense elementary substance is in turn the basis for specific signals to arise in the brain, which are due to dense and less dense compositions of the brain matrix.

With these signals, obtained in X-ray images of the computer tomography (CT), one can recognise the processes of the disease, recovery, healing obstacles and dangerous healing crises and their causes in order to dampen or avoid them.⁶²

The view of the function of nerves and brain as conductors of dense elementary substance is supported by findings that mechanical impulses propagate through nerves. These were discovered in 1979 by the Japanese Ichiji Tasaki, who proved that they were not generated by electrical discharge but vice versa. The pressure generates the electrical signals. These findings were taken up, confirmed and further developed by Prof. Thomas Heimburg and colleagues. They are certain that the transmission and processing of information takes place via nerves and in the brain via mechanical impulses.⁶³ In addition, one can add that in the dense elementary substance, whose transport triggers the mechanical impulses, sensory information can be stored, processed and released again in every conceivable way. Only one very important source of information should be remembered: smells. Without the sense of smell, practical orientation is difficult or even impossible.

From all considerations on this subject, it follows that one optimally supports and promotes one‘s body and oneself by drinking PI water. All human settlements have always developed around water sources and all health-promoting spring waters contain iron. The toxicity of iron in the body, on the other hand, when it exceeds a certain concentration, can be explained, for example, by the fact that too much elementary substance is formed and, as a result, there is too little liquid water in the body, in which those enzymes and substances act that are not fat-soluble. My recommendation: Drink the physiologically sufficient amount of water,⁶⁴ which contains not too much and not too little iron, as in PI water, which was developed in Japan and further developed in Germany.

⁶⁰ See 43

⁶¹ Vorschlag für eine neue Sichtweise auf das Gehirn [Proposal for a new view of the brain]. Stefan Lanka. WissenschafftPlus No. 3/2017.

⁶² Materielle Aspekte im aktualisierten ABC der Therapie [Material aspects in the updated ABC of Therapy]. Stefan Lanka. WissenschafftPlus No. 4/2018.

⁶³ Das mechanische Gehirn [The Mechanical Brain]. Douglas Fox. Brain and Mind 40, 10-2018.

⁶⁴ There are obviously different breathing and eating types, with different drinking water needs. See the explanations on this: Grundlagen der Terlusollogie: Praktische Anwendung eines bipolaren Konstitutionsmodells [Fundamentals of Terlusollogy: Practical application of a bipolar constitutional model]. Christian Hagena. Book, 184 pages, 4th edition 2013. And: Der Säure-Basen-Haushalt. Ein Vitalisator des Organismus [The acid-base balance. A vitaliser of the organism]. Siegfried Johann Mohr. WissenschafftPlus No. 2/2014

Fig. 12: Maunawai water: Through consistent research and further development of the Japanese PI water technique, it has been possible to also compensate for an excess of lime. This is because the Maunawai PI technique releases calcium from the lime, which is released onto the surface of the water in the form of an easily soluble and removable film. This facilitates the formation of sodium bicarbonate, which causes a shift of an acidic pH value into the alkaline range.

In addition to the PI-water effect, the Japanese researchers have studied their healing springs and have also taken their cue from nature on how optimal, bioavailable water is created. They discovered the PI-water complexes in the healing springs and much more, namely that the surface water is freed from toxins of all kinds by the humus layer. This humus function was inserted into the PI-water system in the form of a special and specially processed activated carbon and placed upstream of the water energisation as a filter stage. Then they realised that empty waters should be replenished with certain minerals to enable the body to maintain its ideal composition of the fluids that make up blood, tissues and cells.

Thus, minerals and substances were sought and found that balance out a too much or too little of minerals, as happens in the healing springs studied. What the Japanese researchers optimally solved was a constant swirling of the water, made possible by the spherical shape, into which the materials used in the further steps of producing PI water were placed. In addition to the PI effect, an increase in the generation of elementary substance and release of energy, this enabled optimal bioavailability of the PI water.

There is another explanation besides the PI effect that can be used to explain the incredibly positive effects of robust health and increased performance in agriculture and technology achieved through PI water.⁶⁵ The evidence for this comes from the water researcher Friedrich Hacheney. He developed a turbine technique, with which he released a great deal of surface substance through enormous turbulence of water. Since this surface substance is very fat-soluble, attracts all fat-like substances and therefore dissolves certain plastics, he called the water produced with it levitated water because of these “sucking” properties and the sucking properties of vortices, which he observed everywhere in life.⁶⁶

Friedrich Hacheney recognised that a certain, strong, technical swirling of water, called “leviation”, erases physically stored information of substances dissolved in water. Water absorbs vibrational states of substances and retains them, even if they have been optimally removed from the water or the water has been diluted to such an extent that the formative substance is no longer in it. He researched the reaction of plants, which reacted to water imprinted with toxins in exactly the same way as if these substances were present in high concentrations. If this imprinted or informed water was levitated, i.e. strongly swirled in a certain way, the water lost the imprint of the toxic substances. The plants watered with it showed no stress reactions, which optimised the quality and quantity of plant growth.⁶⁷

In the Maunawai PI water system, the swirling of the water has been optimised through targeted layering of the spherical substances used and thus improved water flow, without the need for mechanically driven, energy-intensive swirling. The Maunawai turbulence was copied from nature, freely following Schauberger‘s motto, understand nature, copy nature. That is why the Maunawai PI process achieves beautiful, permanently preserved imprints in the water as is characteristic of special spring waters.⁶⁸ During construction, it was ensured that the Maunawai-PI water does not come into contact with metal, even in the specially manufactured three-way water taps, in order to reduce the imprint of electromagnetic alternating fields on the water.

To ensure that the laundry and the washing process are also PI-optimised, the washing machine is protected, and the consumption of energy, water and detergent is significantly reduced, the Maunawai organic washing ball was developed.⁶⁹ For the shower, the Maunawai eco-shower head⁷⁰ was developed, if no connection of a Maunawai domestic water system is possible in the house or flat, or will only be possible in the future, with the savings made possible by the use of the low-cost washing ball and shower head.

⁶⁵ See 42

⁶⁶ Wasser. Ein Gast der Erde [Water. A guest of the earth]. Friedrich Hacheney. 347 pages, 1992.

⁶⁷ Levitiertes Wasser in Forschung und Anwendung [Levitated water in research and application]. Friedrich Hacheney. 150 pages, 1994.

⁶⁸ https://wissenschafftplus.maunawai.com/cms/de/wassertropfen-forschung

⁶⁹ https://wissenschafftplus.maunawai.com/shop/p/de/maunwai-pi-waschkugel-set

⁷⁰ https://wissenschafftplus.maunawai.com/shop/p/de/maunawai-oeko-duschkopf

The idea that everything that exists is animate exists in every culture. Water always plays the essential role. Our culture is currently dominated by the idea that only cells are alive and everything else, even the tissue in which the cells live, is inanimate. A primordial cell, according to the theory, came into being by chance, after molecules had been created by chance over a long period of time and had come together. All cells would have emerged from this primordial cell. Organisms would develop from cells and the water in the cells is just a solvent, a solvent for the many molecules that cause metabolism. Metabolism, according to the theory, brings forth, sustains and multiplies the life of the cells. All substances outside the cell are considered lifeless and, if they enter the metabolism, are part of life for a time.

Two discoveries enable a significant expansion of this view, namely that everything that exists is connected: Water gives rise to a previously overlooked or misinterpreted substance that itself possesses the basic properties of life: Contraction, growth and information absorption, storage, processing and release. And: It has been technically possible to produce this energy-rich substance. This substance is the building, energy and information substance of life. Tissue and cells consist of this substance.

In the fringes of water, this substance is formed, which is quite different from liquid water. There is evidence that all the elements and molecules found in water, earth, stars and biology are created in this substance. The Greek word for edge is PI. The Japanese discoverers of the processes of how nature and biology energises water referred to the energised water as PI water. The German explorer referred to the elementary substance that arises from water, from which life is made and derives its primary energy, as Urstoff des Lebens [primary matter of life]. In the Sumerian language, PI means life energy. The discovery of the elementary substance and the processes of how life produces this substance from water enables new ideas about life: How life materialises out of water and that everything that exists is connected and interacts energetically, spiritually and materially.

Thanks to

Peter Augustin
Harold Hillman and colleagues
Gerald N Ling
Shinji Makino
Shoi Yamashita
for their contribution to better understanding and enabling scientifically sound knowledge of the global and cosmic interconnectedness of life.

The Swiss biologist Adolf Portmann writes about this in his book Aufbruch der Lebensforschung [The Start of Life Research], Zurich 1965, page 56:

From the chapter Enlightenment and Appearance in the Living

Life research is currently working in wide fields of its activity in an alarming oblivion of all those features of life that do not directly serve the preservation of the species or the metabolism of the individual. Biology must overcome this oblivion and allow a more comprehensive knowledge of the living to take effect.

It must recognise and put into practice that world-relationship through the enigmatic inwardness and self-representation of this inwardness are supreme qualities of life which, along with self-preservation, self-development and species transformation, constitute on an equal footing the whole of the living, as far as we can grasp it.

This demand for a new conception of the organism, which is appropriate to the true greatness of the object, is connected with another demand for a comprehensive conception of reality, a conception of reality, which also encounters the mystery of the creative in awe and from this attitude, applies the method of natural research.

The knowledge of the vastness and the greatness of the living in each of its manifestations is the prerequisite for any full-fledged statement of biology.

From the chapter Freedom and Attachment in the Light of Life Research of the same book (see above), page 250:

It is of utmost importance that life research itself points to those unknown primordial reasons of our human being as well as of living things in general, to all that, which we cannot put into action ourselves even with our highly developed conscious guidance systems.