Stefan Lanka Exposes COVID Science Fraud


The Complaint

German virologist Stefan Lanka has launched a complaint against Prof. Christian Drosten, the alleged “co-discoverer” of both SARS coronaviruses and head of the Institute of Virology at the Charité Medical School in Berlin, for scientific fraud implicating him in crimes against humanity. The complaint was submitted to German and international law enforcement authorities.

“His [Drosten’s] action, to construct an alleged virus detection test and to offer it to the world public via the World Health Organization (WHO) – before Chinese scientists had published indications of the possible presence of a harmless or a dangerous virus – intended to globalize the wave of panic that started on December 30, 2019 in Wuhan, China.

Prof. Drosten is mainly responsible for the fact that people all over the world, by means of the assertion of a demonstrably false fact, were and are still being placed under living conditions that are defined in the International Criminal Code as crimes against humanity.”

Lanka’s full letter to readers is posted here. He writes (as translated by Google):

“If you can understand the reasoning… please send the text to those responsible at home and abroad, e.g. for information and to initiate to various governments via their ambassadors.

In the event that you receive constructive answers, please let me know.”

Lanka can be reached at his website:

Lanka is best known for winning a German court case in which he proved there was no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the measles virus.

The Fraud before the Fraud

Lanka presents to the public via his quarterly publication, Wissenschafft Plus, a comprehensive review of Drosten’s scientific fraud in “The Virus Misconception Part II: The beginning and the end of the corona crisis,” released this summer. Please download and share for wide review.

The publication is timely given the identification of a PCR test primer said to be identical to a human genetic sequence. (In reality, we suggest there may be many such sequences as Dr. Andrew Kaufman indicates there are hundreds of different testing protocols.)

Prof. Christian Drosten, taking a break from inventing viruses

Dr. Christian Drosten came to public attention in 2003, at the time of the first alleged SARS outbreak. Shortly after scientists decided, without considering non-viral causes of an “atypical pneumonia”, that a new virus was the cause of a new deadly disease, Dr. Drosten created what Wikipedia calls “a diagnostic test” for the alleged new virus. Scientists assumed a “new infectious agent” to be the cause of a new disease, despite its presentation with generic cold/flu symptoms, without consideration of other “non-infectious” causes, such as external toxins. Sound familiar?

Thus, Drosten’s May 2003 paper “Identification of a Novel Coronavirus in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” states that SARS patient samples were “searched for unknown viruses”. And sure enough, “a novel coronavirus was identified” as a result, as what are understood to be coronaviruses are generally associated with respiratory disease, i.e, cold conditions in the respiratory tract. No one in modern medicine seems to have questioned the influence of cold temperature itself, which in traditional and natural medicine is understood as a primary cause of disease. (It is one of Chinese medicine’s “six pernicious influences”.)

C. pneumoniae bacteria were also found, not by PCR, but by electron microscopy, but this seems to have been taken as subsequent to a viral infection as no note was taken of it.

Drosten et al claim to have isolated the virus and then used a random-amplification PCR technique to identify the new SARS virus sequence fragment. The sequences were referenced from a US National Library of Medicine database of biological sequences. The virus was said not to be found in controls.

So to dig a little deeper, just how did Drosten “isolate the virus”?

RNA presumed to be viral was elicited via a “viral RNA kit” in conjunction with a lab preparation containing:

  • a mixture containing human sputum, acetylcysteine (organic substance that reduces mucus), sodium chloride and phosphate-buffered saline; and
  • immunosuppressed (interferon-deficient) monkey kidney cells (Vero cells), in which characteristic they differ from normal mammalian cells (so that they cannot ‘fight viruses’); or
  • dog kidney cells with the capability of encouraging tissue self-organization and growth; or
  • cells from cancerous lung tissue,

all of which were embedded in chemical resins.

After six days, scientists saw a “cytopathic effect” (cells started to die or show stress responses) – but only in the lab preparation containing the immunosuppressed monkey kidney cells. As Dr. Tom Cowan noted in his blog in October 2020 regarding a later CDC study using the same process, in the must-read post linked above, that the CDC

proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.

This is the crux of the standard procedure for what scientists call “isolating” viruses in the lab: it is actually exactly the opposite of isolation. It is a bizarre miscegenation and toxification of human and non-human cells.

The Drosten team then ran a PCR test “targeted to the novel coronavirus”. For this specific test, they used primer sequences “communicated from the WHO’s SARS etiology network” by scientists from the U.S. CDC. As noted, they then went to the US National Library of Medicine genetic database to look for matched sequences.

They found 20 DNA fragments, “most” of which “matched human chromosome sequences”, from which they concluded the original human samples had been amplified. It is unclear if these “matches” were 100% and how many Drosten et al meant by “most” as there is no explicit information in the paper included about this. In addition, the team did not appear to do a homologous gene search to see if any of the DNA fragments they identified might have derived from the monkey cells, inasmuch as humans share 93% of their DNA with monkeys. (This is a presumable reason they have been used in the very studies purporting to prove the last of Koch’s postulates with regard to the presumed viral pathogenic origin of disease.)

Three fragment sequences were not found in the database. Those sequences were in the coronavirus “frame” but did not overlap with a sequence identified by the US CDC. Drosten’s team then ran more PCR and did some more genetic sequencing to find a sequence 100% identical to the CDC fragment. So they searched further down the RNA strand and found that the second sequence was identical to the other CDC sequence. As for the part in the middle of these two sequences, using a computer process of alignment, they filled in the rest, and thus presumed the two sequences were part of one entity.

According to Drosten et al, this demonstrated that “the two sequences were derived from a contiguous RNA molecule and, thus, from the same virus.” These sequences represented merely a small fraction of the total presumed viral length of 30,000 base pairs.

Dr. Tom Cowan has described “this computer-generation step” as “scientific fraud”. He explains further:

Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.

Lanka describes Drosten’s actions in 2003, which applies to all laboratory “science” regarding “viruses”, as the “conceptual creation of an RNA strand allegedly belonging to a new virus”.

So, one might now ask, how did the computer generate the SARS sequence?

Lanka explains:

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’”.

So, the CDC is also implicated in such creation as it was they who provided the genetic templates to Drosten in the form of a government database. In fact there are many such databases, including private ones as well. If one cannot see the artifice and profit motive here, one is likely blind.

Accordingly, Drosten didn’t wait around for others to scrutinize or validate his work in 2003, or later in 2019 when he generated the idea of SARS-CoV-2, which was based on his prior artifice in generating SARS-1.

According to Wikipedia: “Drosten immediately made his findings on SARS available to the scientific community on the internet, even before his article appeared in New England Journal of Medicine in May 2003. Among others, this was honoured by the journal Nature.

SARS-1 A Nothingburger — But Still A Deadly Threat

It is worth noting that SARS alleged to have killed a mere 774 people worldwide, alleged to have infected 8,098, according to the CDC, and was not considered an “epidemic” or “pandemic”, but an “outbreak”. According to WHO/CDC definitions, just one case of an atypical health manifestation qualifies as an outbreak. Evidence for SARS as a clinical disease remains scant and it has long been considered “clinically irrelevant”, according to Torsten Engelbrecht in Virus Mania.

Yet, the fear of SARS was “perpetuated across time”, according to Lanka. Indeed, many scientific papers were published throughout the years since 2003 asserting the persistence of the SARS coronavirus as a threat. More than a threat, the resurgence of the virus was seen to be “a matter of time” and inevitable. Scientists spent a lot of time and resources trying to prove that bats are a repository of such viruses. Their claim, much like that asserted in the movie Contagion except with relation to pigs, is that such viruses that are harmless in bats would pose a deadly threat to humans through mutation.

In all that time, however, as Lanka notes: “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.”

Drosten’s SARS-2 Fraud Replay

Fast-forward to January 1, 2020. Despite the fact that the WHO China country office had only been notified of cases of atypical pneumonia on December 31, 2019, Drosten repeats his 2003 scientific feat just a day later by inventing a “real-time” RT-PCR test (RT = reverse transcription is a process required to convert RNA to DNA for amplification) yet another “novel coronavirus”. On the basis of an official Chinese announcement on January 7 that a novel coronavirus (wouldn’t you know?) had been isolated and was the “causative agent”, Drosten downloads from two databases what Lanka describes as “short genetic sequences theoretically ascribed to the original SARS viruses.” On the basis of these sequences, Lanka explains, he develops another “template” for his test, meaning, “he designed the primers that would delineate the genetic sequences to be amplified” by his test.

And in fact, the template created by Drosten only tests for the presence of two genes out of the 10 genes that “theoretically constitute” the SARS-2 coronavirus genome.

Drosten then submitted an article purporting to demonstrate “Detection of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by Real-Time RT-PCR” on January 21; it was accepted for publication the following day and published the following day, January 23.

It is also worth noting that the sequences published by Drosten are not 100% specific, meaning that two different base pairs were presumed to potentially exist at various sites in various sequences, according to the note: “W is A/T; R is G/A; M is A/C; S is G/C.”)

Incidentally, maybe someone can find additional human genomic sequences as described in those published sequences. Lanka notes quite significantly that “50% of the total genes of our chromosomes” (italics ours) originate from what are considered viruses, according to Karin Mölling, another German virologist who has written several papers and a book on the matter.

Drosten notes in his January 2020 article:

We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness [of the novel coronavirus] to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology. (bold ours)

So how did Drosten know that the new coronavirus was related to SARS? What did information did Drosten rely on to postulate a SARS-related coronavirus was at play? Social media. He writes in the same article:

“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.” And then of course, he just went to the database of the presumed SARS sequence.

Meanwhile, Chinese scientists did not publish their “preliminary compilations” of genetic sequences “related to the virus” until January 10 and January 12, 2020. They were subsequently modified on January 24 and February 3. They too assumed a novel coronavirus cause without other considerations, mainly on the basis of the allegation that antibiotic treatments were not working in these pneumonia cases. These scientists, mostly from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, also used genetic databases to assemble these sequences into a theoretical strand. But they indicated in their publications at these times that they “lacked the necessary evidence to claim that the proposed sequences could cause diseases. The proposed sequences were still preliminary and were not subject to the strict processes of scientific review,” Lanka notes.

Thus, as Lanka states, “At that time, there was no clinical data available that could support such claims” of Drosten.

So, what samples did Drosten et al use in their paper purporting to have detected the new SARS coronavirus? Various lab samples suspected to already contain coronavirus and other respiratory viruses from his own lab and a lab in Hong Kong; clinical (actual patient) respiratory samples from Germany; and “biobank” respiratory samples from Germany, Netherlands (Rotterdam), London and the University of Hong Kong. (Biobanks store cryogenically frozen human samples including genetic data.)

And let’s not forget the bat shit. Drosten et al also used European bat fecal samples to identify the suspected genetic sequences at play.

Drosten admitted that the tests were prone to error: “For each virus with which initial positive reactivity occurred, there were other samples that contained the same virus at a higher concentration but did not test positive.” These were attributed to “handling issues” caused by the tests’ “rapid introduction.”

WHO Recommends Drosten’s Test Before Chinese Identify Anything

All of this didn’t stop the WHO from recommending Drosten’s test on January 21, before the Chinese had published their initial findings. Indeed, Drosten’s test began to be used everywhere, despite the fact, that as Lanka emphasizes, “Drosten used scientifically untested data… that was by no means collected from the origin of the outbreak in China.”

Further, he argues, Drosten did not verify that the genetic sequences he used for the basis of his test actually came from a virus, or that they were related to the Chinese alleged virus samples.

Nor did Drosten carry out control experiments to investigate whether the alleged viruses actually stem from a disease process, or from normal metabolic processes. In doing so, he broke the “unequivocal rules of scientific work” and is “spreading proven false facts”, says Lanka.

Lanka’s International Call for Control Experiments

Lanka suggests that sequencing genetic material from healthy people would put the issue of whether there is a disease-causing SARS-CoV-2 virus in existence to rest:

“The researchers should try to build a viral genetic strand out of the short genetic sequences extracted from healthy people. … The results of such a control experiment would, on their own, bring the corona crisis to an end.”

He also suggests that RT-PCR tests could be done from samples of people with “totally different symptoms and diseases” and from healthy samples of people, plants and animals alike to see if they test positive. These “experiments” are exactly what is already being done, we add, informally and unscientifically, for all of the above, including goats, the African paw-paw fruit, and are increasingly confirmed by news reports daily, such as the latest 77 false positive tests done on NFL players. But such controlled experiments would actually scientifically prove the PCR tests are worthless, says Lanka.

Lanka thus has designed such an experiment and has called on specialists to do the same and to contact him with results.

The Real Truth about “Viruses”

What Lanka and Molling tell us is that we need to understand “viruses” as RNA genetic sequences produced by our own metabolism:

“Human metabolism constantly generates a huge amount of RNA genetic sequences of many types and compositions that do not show up in the form of DNA sequences in the chromosomes. This fact alone questions any claims concerning the existence of RNA viruses, such as the corona viruses, Ebola viruses, HIV, the measles virus and the SARS virus.”

So, it appears, “viruses” are nucleic acid–protein complexes that serve many different purposes in the body, some comprising the origins of our DNA material, and some serving other functions.

It is this natural intelligence that the faulty infectious virus myth pathologizes, and which finance- and technology-based medical science now criminalizes, for profit and control, as it aims to implement a dystopian system of artificial unintelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *