Is virology wrong? | Dr. Andrew Kaufman & dr. Stefan Lanka debate dr. Wolfgang Wodarg

This discussion is way overdue.Show more

The arguments become very complicated very quickly. Without having spent thousands of hours combing through complicated literature, it is unfortunately not possible to check the veracity of claims made in this discussion.

My position is that virologists have insufficient proof to say that (1) viruses exists, (2) specific viruses cause specific diseases, (3) viruses are transmissible.

However, my position is also that drs. Kaufman and Lanka have presented insufficient proof for their assertion that there are no viruses. They have merely made a good case that there's insufficient that they do exist. Remember: absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

NB: It seems to me that there is broad agreement on the existence of bacteria and their pathogenicity, so this discussion pertains to viruses. I could be wrong on this.

It seems more than reasonable to me to demand that control experiments are done, i.e. to give non-infected cells the same treatment as infected cells and then see if they also have 'viruses'. As far as my limited knowledge on virology goes, these control experiments are seldom done, except by dr. Lanka.

We should never ever accept that virologists are right, merely because they say they are right. We absolutely have the right to doubt virologists, even if we are not virologists ourselves.

I don't agree with many of the criticisms of dr. Wodarg. For example, he...

1. puts the burden of proof on drs. Kaufman and Lanka to come up with explanations and mechanisms for certain diseases. This is unreasonable for the discussion on whether there is sufficient proof for viruses. Many other diseases such as scurvy, pellagra and beriberi were once thought to be infectious and turned out to be due to nutritional deficiencies. I think dr. Peter Duesberg makes a very convincing argument that AIDS may not be caused by HIV and that it is not even well defined what AIDS actually is. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is merely other diseases relabeled as AIDS.

2. says that dr. Lanka has not proved his assertions adequately, because they have not been published in the scientific literature. Dr. Lanka's defense is that he wrote and submitted the papers, but the journals won't accept them. I very much agree with dr. Lanka that the scientific world in practice has more resemblance to a cult than to the Scientific Method.

We have seen this recently with the refusal or severe delay to publish papers by Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Denis Rancourt, Norman Fenton (even pre-print servers refused to publish his recent articles!), but also a few years back with prof. Tim Noakes.

3. laments that so much time is 'wasted' in this discussion talking about definitions, but definitions are absolutely fundamental to this whole discussion.

4. refers to the way it is common to do things, such as viral cultures, as 'proof' that this is the right way to go. What matters is what is RIGHT, not what is COMMON.

I agree with Reiner Fuellmich that if you don't want tyranny, forming your argument on the non-existence of viruses is absolutely the wrong way to go. Going for the low hanging fruit and what can easily be proved, has infinitely more success potential. Examples:

- the PCR test is highly oversensitive as it is used and not suitable for diagnosis, especially with people who have no symptoms
- face masks are useless and at a minimum do more harm than good. The same goes for all the other measures of mass destruction, such as lockdowns, social distancing, passports, etc.
- there was no SIGNIFICANT excess all cause mortality and morbidity in 2020, so there is no real pandemic. At best there is a disease that is about 2-3x as bad as the seasonal flu. This does not warrant that fear mongering, mass hysteria and totalitarian measures.
- the jabs have no efficacy or even negative efficacy, and they're also highly toxic. Both the apparent efficacy and safety are mostly or completely debunked with unreliable data (e.g. relating to hospitalization regarding vaccination status and with vs for COVID) and miscategorization of PARTIALLY vaccinated people as UNvaccinated. Even Pfizer's official data show an increased all cause mortality in the vaccinated group versus the control group.
- early treatment and strengthening of the immune system (e.g. with vitamin D, healthier diet/lifestyle/environment) as an astronomically better alternatives to the current measures. We must focus on the 'terrain'. Proof on whether germs exist is necessary too, but should be way down on the list of priorities if you ask me.

I agree with dr. Kaufman that we cannot trust the courts. Regardless of whether we can trust them, we should pursue as many avenues as possible in parallel.

SOURCE: https://odysee.com/@Corona-Investigative-Committee:5/Andrew-Kaufman-Stefan-Lanka-session-90-en:a