Artikel
LK-Verlags UG

AIDSSARS BSE
CoronaMERS

The Virus
Misconception
Part IIDr Stefan Lanka

2 WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

The Virus Misconception

Part II

The beginning and the end of the corona crisis
Dr. Stefan Lanka

According to the definition of SARS and of Corona or Covid-19,
atypical pneumonia is considered to be the characteristic clinicalpicture of the illness. If pathogens commonly associated with thedisease 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 andvirologists 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 newvirus 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 numberof cases. First, patients with typical pneumonia are recorded ashaving contracted the virus and then more and more people withother illnesses join the list. This is regarded as practical evidenceof the virus propagation. New medical conditions are added tothe 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” forsuch 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 thenclaimed 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 thatscientists need to verify all claims themselves. The second one isthat all assumptions and methods need to be verified by means ofcontrol 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 thatseveral people had been put into quarantine at his hospital andthat 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 thefact 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 carriedout. On the contrary: the Chinese virologists claimed that theconstructed genetic strand showed a 90% similarity to othergenetic 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 thetesting method developed by Prof Drosten. As we will see lateron, his claim to have developed a reliable detection test for thevirus 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 scientificresearch, which are an integral part of his work contract, and by
violating the logic and general principles of virology.

3

WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

1. The beginning of the corona crisis
On 30 December 2019 in Wuhan, the young ophthalmologist
Li Wenliang contacted seven other fellow physicians throughthe WeChat app to inform them that, at his hospital, several
people had been put into quarantine and that seven of themwere 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 thismessage ended up publishing a screenshot of the conversationon 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 ahuge 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 thesurrounding 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 thesituation 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”1,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 sharedby 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 inorder 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 ofthem. 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 newheights 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 acidtesting came back with a positive result, the dust has settled,
finally diagnosed.“This message aggravated the already existing panic. The laststraw that broke the camel’s back was the leaking to the publicof 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, theintensive use of antibiotics proved ineffective and he eventuallydied on 7 February 2020. The situation was on the brink of escalation due to the chaotic and contradictory way in which thegovernment 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 takenplace in Wuhan. The name was eventually changed to Covid-19
and classified as a pandemic.

2. One of the two possible causes of Li Wenliang’s fear
Li Wenliang’s fear was based on the events of 2003. Back then,several Western scientists were studying an increase in thenumber of atypical pneumonia cases in Southern China. Twodays after Prof Drosten’s participation in the conceptual construction of an RNA strand allegedly belonging to a new virus(SARS-CoV-1)2, the German scientist offered a test for this new
virus3. 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 wasstill present in 2019 can be traced back to two scientific papers
published in 20134 and 20145. These publications set in all kindsof speculations about the fact that new SARS Corona virus outbreaks were a matter of time. The authors of both papers claimthat there is evidence of the presence of short genetic sequencesin 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 thesymptoms 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 andother animals, could be transmitted to humans by means ofbites, 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.

4 WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

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 todetermine a complete and intact genetic strand belonging to a
SARS virus, in other words, in order to determine the genomeof 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 ofgenetic 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 tothe ones defined to be components of the 2003 SARS Corona
virus (more on this below).

3. The second of the possible causes of Li Wenliang’s fear
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 visitedmeat markets regularly. In order to confirm their hypothesisof an unknown virus causing the atypical pneumonia, manyfacts 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 thelungs 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 sufferfrom 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 thepneumonia is classified as atypical, it is common that at somepoint a secondary bacterial focus arises, which changes theclassification and the pneumonia becomes “typical”. This is thereason 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 virus6 documented the medical examinations performed on five patientswith 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 accountthe possibility of “non-infectious” causes like the ones that wehave briefly mentioned. This is not something that virologists
usually consider, and given the climate of panic in Wuhan, themembers of the CCDC had no other choice but to look for apathogenic virus. Focusing on an alleged viral cause influences how patients are going to be treated, as they are exposed toa cocktail of antibiotics with strong side effects that, in case of
overdoses, can even kill the them.7 Extreme panic, especiallywhen dealing with respiratory issues, can cause death all by
itself, with no other causes. Panic can kill people rapidly, notonly those with respiratory and cardiovascular problems.
The answer to the following question is key to put an end tothe corona crisis: has a new virus been proved to exist or havethe short genetic sequences that are inherent to the humanbody 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 theGerman population was eager to get vaccinated against the
supposed virus causing the swine flu. The nationwide massvaccination 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 makethings 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 spreadamong 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

5

WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

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 wasthen 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 thereports of new infections with it and the corresponding media
coverage. One could conclude that the swine flu virus mutatedinto 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 theirconclusions 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 theswine flu H1N1 failure!
Some of the articles included in that edition are available on theinternet8, however the most important ones are not to be found.
Thus, the crucial recommendations for the management of apandemic 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 thistime. 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 theexistence of a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 was strengthened.

4. The globalization of the Chinese SARS virus panic and
how Prof Drosten set the course for the corona crisis
Prof Christian Drosten, head of the Institute of Virology at theCharité Medical School in Berlin, claims to have developed atest since 1 January 2020 that allows the detection of the newcorona virus in the human body in a reliable way.9 The WHOstarted recommending the use of that test to China and toother nations on 21 January 2020, claiming that the testing
method was indeed able to detect the presence of the newcorona virus and thus it was able to determine the spreadingof the virus.10

In order to a) be able to understand the underlying hypothesis andthe course of action behind Prof Drosten’s claims and in order tob) 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 tounderstand 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 thatare 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 nowon).
- The genome of the virus contains a chain of different genetic sequences, the so-called viral genes, that produce the different viralproteins.
- 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 sequencewhich is not present in healthy organisms.
- In order to verify and determine the presence of a virus, andfollowing the most fundamental rules of scientific reasoning, thevirus needs to be isolated and displayed in its pure form in orderto rule out that cellular genetic sequences are misinterpreted ascomponents 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

6 WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

the application of an electric current to the gel. The negative andpositives charges on both ends make the molecules move throughthe 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 moreeasily the length of the nucleic acids under study, nucleic acids
with a known length are added for comparison.

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 ispreceded by another step, the conversion of RNA into DNA
by means of “reverse transcription” (RT), is therefore called“real-time RT PCR”.

· If the concentration of a specific genome is so low that the gelelectrophoresis 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 thisPCR technique, one can obtain enough material for further determination of the length and sequence of the DNA sample.

· The test that Prof Drosten invented for the detection of thecorona virus is a “real-time RT PCR”. On 1 January 2020 hedownloaded a database of short genetic sequences theoretically ascribed to the original SARS viruses. On the basis of theseshort genetic sequences, interpreted as possible constituentsof SARS viruses, he developed the “template” for his test, thatis, he designed the primers that would delineate the genetic sequences to be amplified by his “real-time RT PCR” test in orderto detect the “still” unknown virus in China.

The inventor of the PCR technique, Karry Mullis, to whom theNobel Prize was awarded in 1993 for this invention, indicatedearly 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 noscientific evidence that the genetic material defined as the genome of HIV can cause immunodeficiency or any other of theillnesses 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.

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
2020.11 These publications represented the first attempts of theChinese 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 thestrict processes of scientific review.

The amplification of DNA by means of the PCR techniquerequires 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) thatare attached at the beginning and at the end of the DNA anddelineate the area that will be amplified. In other words, theprerequisite for using the PCR is to know exactly what is going
to be amplified.

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 theChinese experts containing the preliminary virus sequenceseven 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. 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 202012, the virus was
renamed “SARS-CoV-2” with the cooperation of Prof Drosten.

Once the above information is understood, it is easy to realizethat the PCR method cannot detect or identify any unknown sequences or any unknown viruses. Only the prior determinationof the sequence of a virus makes it possible for scientists todevelop 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”.

This name change from “nCoV” to “SARS-CoV-2” gave the impression to the public opinion that the world was not facing aharmless 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 – andthey still do at present – that they had no evidence for claimingthat the new virus was responsible for causing any illness. What
if these genetic sequences under examination were present insome ill people, in healing processes of the body, after these· 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 artificiallyreplicated DNA were created and roughly how much DNA wasactually present at the start of the PCR. Since the amount of7 WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

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 clearlyrecognizable line between a scientifically justified action andan obvious and serious fraud. He will be unable to find an
excuse by saying that he published his test procedure on January 23, 202013 in a scientific magazine which does not checkthe statements made therein before publishing them.

5. The decisive questions for the end of the corona crisis
We need to ask ourselves if Prof Drosten has fulfilled his scientific duty – essential part of his employment contract14 – andtherefore if he has thoroughly verified all the claims included in
his publication about the PCR detection method developed byhim and, for that matter, all the public statements that he madein relation to this research.
The questions are the following:
I. Did Prof Drosten verify if the genetic sequences that he usedas the basis for the development of his detection test actually
come from a virus?
II. Did Prof Drosten carry out the mandatory control experiments to test his hypothesis that the genetic sequences usedby him were constituents of a virus? Did he carry out these control experiments in order to rule out the possibility that thesegenetic sequences, ascribed to an alleged virus, were in reality
particles arising during all metabolic processes, even present
in plants such as papayas in Tanzania15 or whose presence inhuman metabolism is increased during diseases?
III. 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 testis only testing for the presence of 2 genes out of the 10 genesthat 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 toconstitute 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 February2020 renamed SARS-CoV-2) and he described its development
in a scientific paper that was published on 23 January 2020.16
On page 3 of this paper, left column and 8th line from below,
he describes the first and decisive steps that shaped his courseof 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 thecause 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, 3rdline from above: “These sequences were aligned [note from theauthor: 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 sequenceat virological.org, three assays were selected based on how wellthey matched to the 2019-nCoV genome (Figure 1).
His statements give us clear answers, conclusions and consequences:
I. Did Prof Drosten verify if the genetic sequences that he used as
the basis for the development of his detection test actually comefrom 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 dueto the fact that the two Chinese publications dealing with the firstclinical results were available only after the market launch of his
test.
II. Did Prof Drosten carry out the mandatory control experiments
to test his hypothesis that the genetic sequences used by him wereconstituents 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 inhuman 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 carriedout 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 comingfrom 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 ofa 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 sucha 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 totallydifferent symptoms and diseases than the ones ascribed to the corona virus, as well as to test clinical samples coming from both

8 WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

healthy people and plants or animals. The aim is to check if thesesamples also test “positive”. This PCR test is being used millionsof 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 thatyou don’t have millions of cases of misdiagnosis around the world
because it is defective and is testing people “positive” for otherreasons rather than a virus. These control experiments have notbeen carried out until today, and no one is even claiming to havecarried out such experiments. Maybe that is the reason why theinventors and manufacturers of these tests clearly indicate in theirpackage 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 forexample patients with a kidney condition, will test positive with
Prof Drosten’s PCR method in 100% of the cases as soon as asmear sample is amplified a little and concentrated. There is ahigh 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 contaminatedwith 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 someindependent observers and if all steps are thoroughly recorded
and documented. Please we encourage you to get in touch withus, the contact information is available at the webpage of ourpublisher. 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.
III. 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 testis only testing for the presence of 2 genes out of the 10 genesthat 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 toconstitute 50% of the total genes of our chromosomes?
Prof Drosten does not seem to have taken into considerationsuch 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 amountof shorter genetic sequences. In order for the PCR test to beconsidered a valid and reliable detection method, additional

research should be undertaken to support the claim that thedetection of short genetic sequences, assumed to be fragmentsof a virus, automatically shows the presence of a whole and intact viral genome. This kind of obvious and logical studies havebeen neither carried out nor mentioned to date.
Prof Karin Mölling, a leading virologist in the area of cellularparticles 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 book17
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, isthe fact that human metabolism constantly generates a hugeamount of RNA genetic sequences of many types and compositions that do not show up in form of DNA sequences in thechromosomes. 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 themany other previous articles in the magazine dealing with thisquestion.

Continuation of this article will follow.

9 WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS magazin 02/2020 · Auszug

List of sources

1
A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 727-33. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017. Published on the 24.1.2020.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

12
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;

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-ansichten.dehttps://kenfm.de/von-der-verantwortung-eines-virologen/

13

2

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

3

4
Xing-Yi Ge et al., Isolation and characterization of a bat SARSlike coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature. Band 503,
2013, S. 535–538, doi:10.1038/nature12711
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711

5
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

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

6

7
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;
h t t p s : / / w w w. t h e l a n c e t . c om / j o u r n a l s / l a n c e t / a r t i c l e /PIIS2213-2600(20)30076-X/fulltext

8
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, edition Nr. 12, December 2010.
Pandemien. Lessons learned https://link.springer.com/journal/103/53/12

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/

910Diagnostika: 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

11

See source 6

See source 9§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

1415
An example of how the public opinion dealt with the news
that even fruits tested positive for “SARS-Cov-2” can be foundhere 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-tanzaniacoronavirus-kits-after-goat-test-idUSKBN22F0KF

16

Ver 9

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

17

Table Water Filter System100%
frei vonWeichmachern
free ofplasticizers

Die MAUNAWAI® Kanne macht aus jedem Leitungswasser ein Wasser wie aus unberührten Bergquellen. Sie erhalten bestes schadstofffreies und lebendiges Wasser, welches unserem Zellwasser sehrähnlich ist und deshalb vom Körper optimal aufgenommen und verwendet werden kann.
Die Maunawai® Kanne Kini wird aus hochwertigem, lebensmittelechtem Kunststoff in Deutschland produziert und geprüft.
The MAUNAWAI® jug turns every tap water into a water fresh outof virgin mountain springs. What you get is the best pollutant-freeand vital water, which is very similar to your cell water and thus
can be absorbed and used by your body in an optimal way.
The jug is easy to use. Fill the upper tank with tap water, the waterruns in a few minutes through the PI filter cartridge and is immediately ready to drink.

Information MAUNAWAI GmbH
Tel.: +49 3327 570880 · info@maunawai.com · www.maunawai.com

Abonnieren Sie jährlich 4 Ausgaben
desmagazins: