The Arguments for “NO VIRUS”-PART 28. The long-awaited answer to the question of how it was possible to deceive thousands of virologists ?

Virology – a science that isn't one. A guest article by Bernd Lukoschnik.

---

---

Foreword

by Suavek

---

In the search bar on the website of the German journalists' group Apolut.net, two similar author names can be found: Bernd Lukoschik (without the "n" in the surname) and Bernd Lukoschnik (with an "n"). Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the author's name ( Bernd Lukoschnik) listed in this article is incorrect.

Please note the date of the article's original publication: "Updated November 23, 2021." The author did not have access to all the information available to us today. Especially with regard to the decades-long planning of the "COVID" fraud, not everything was yet clear to us at the time. Furthermore, we did not yet have access to all the information that legal researcher Katherine Watt (https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/) , with her almost superhuman efforts, was able to gather and make available to us.

The author of the article, Bernd Lukoschnik, answers the question “Why were so many virologists deceived on the subject of ‘viruses’ for decades?” comprehensively and even quite neutrally. The decision as to what is real and what is not therefore rests solely with the reader.

Thanks to the author for the right to publish this article.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Original title in English translation:

Virology – a science that isn't one

A guest article by Bernd Lukoschnik.

1. Updated on Nov. 23, 2021

Source / Original article in German :

https://apolut.net/die-virologie-eine-wissenschaft-die-keine-ist-von-bernd-lukoschnik/

The translation into English : Suavek.

---

A viewpoint by Bernd Lukoschnik

---

Preliminary remark

Koch's postulates

1. The pathogen must be detectable in all cases of disease with the same symptoms, but not in healthy individuals.

2. The pathogen can be transferred from the patient into a pure culture (isolation).

3. A previously healthy person, after infection with the pathogen from the pure culture, shows the same symptoms as the person from whom the pathogen originated.

4. The pathogen can be transferred back into a pure culture from the infected and diseased individuals.

What's going on with virology?

The intellectual self-mutilation of today's star science, virology, which has been rampant for a year is frightening – and puzzling.

Why are opposing positions ignored, even condemned in a religiously belligerent manner? For every science, including virology, it is necessary to allow and discuss every school of thought. For a fruitful research process, it has always been essential that one theory, especially the dominant one, rub shoulders with its opposing ones. This alone has advanced science. Why isn't this happening in the time of “coronavirus”?

Various reasons come to mind: Ultimately, scientists are influenced by big money and politics, and/or their career aspirations, and/or the need to raise third-party funding for their own institute. In these circumstances, one simply cannot tolerate approaches that are harmful to biotechnology!

All of this may be true. Science has long since degenerated into a business, one enterprise among others.

But to explain the catastrophic decline in knowledge in virus science, one must dig deeper: namely, to trace the gradual change in the scientific logic of virology.

Platonism in physics

In his “Conversation on the Two Main World Systems” , the Copernican and the Ptolemaic, Galileo develops the natural philosophical and methodological foundations of modern physics in the debate with the Aristotelian view of nature.

In the discussion, the Aristotelian succinctly summarizes Galileo’s natural philosophy and his view of what characterizes the new physics when he says (2):

"I have several times observed your way of discussing and have been led to believe that you are inclined to the Platonic view that our knowledge is a kind of recollection."

Knowledge and explanation in Plato's sense are essentially recollection. One recognizes and explains the natural process to be investigated, which presents itself to sensory perception, by the once perceived "idea" in which the sensory given "participates." recalling

The Platonist does not derive the truth about natural processes from perception, i.e., from empiricism. On the contrary, in order to break free from mere opinion and sensory appearances, the Platonic scientist must turn away from concrete natural processes, turn to the "spirit," and, in a kind of "essential contemplation," trace ideas. The most important ideas for understanding nature are numbers, numerical relationships, and formulas. They reflect the essence of natural processes and perceptual objects.

Platonic division into true being and its shadows

But ideas, numbers, and the mind are not only the basis of knowledge for the perceived nature. Even more important for Plato: ideas are also the ground of being of that which exists in space and time. Ideas possess true reality; they are what truly exists, what is actually real. While perceptible reality is only a kind of shadowed reality that derives its existence solely from the world of ideas.

Platonism, via the Platonist Galileo, feeds this dichotomy of nature into a world of ideas and spirits with a strong being, and a weak, improper reality, into modern physics. And since physics remains the leading science of all sciences to this day, all sciences are also determined by this Platonic view of nature.

This has serious consequences for virology today (see below).

Science – Oscillating between empiricism and theory

In modern natural science, mathematical concepts, theories, and models have replaced ideas. The importance of mathematics for natural science was already prefigured by numbers as the most important ideas in Plato's "heaven of ideas."

Of course, the modern physicist and scientist, oriented toward Plato, must also look back to empirical evidence to reassure themselves that their theorizing does not drift into mere speculation. Empiricism, that is, intuition, perception, experiment, and control experiments, are necessary correctives for theory formation.

The decisive criteria of truth, however, lie in the ideas themselves: the clear vision of the idea, or in modern terms: the elegant construction of the theory, its internal coherence, its consistency, the intellectual beauty of the mathematical design. To put it bluntly: What is mathematically beautiful cannot be false. Werner Heisenberg, for example, beautifully expresses this enthusiasm for the cognitive power of mathematical theory formation:

"In any case, I sensed in the formulas (...) a mathematics at work that, in a sense, functioned independently, far removed from physical concepts. This mathematics exerted a magical attraction on me. And I was fascinated by the idea that perhaps the first threads of a vast network of deep-seated connections had become visible here."

Deep within the scientist's soul resonates the conviction, the Platonic legacy, that mathematical theory alone represents true reality, that modern science is all about creating beautiful theory, and that agreement with the sensory world is secondary. The mathematical construct is truly real, and experimental verification is truly derived.

Confusing “Corona” world

There are currently no isolates of SARS-CoV-2, just as there are no isolates of SARS-CoV-1 (4)!

From which follows:

First, there can be no PCR tests for the SARS virus because, in order to develop such PCR tests, they would have to be calibrated to the virus, which is only possible if the virus is available as an isolated in pure culture, purified from all co-present organic components, and serves as a benchmark for calibration.

Second, there can be no evidence of a causal link between the SARS coronavirus and a specific disease, Covid-19, because how can one prove the virus to be the case if one has not isolated it?

[ Editor's note: There are no specific symptoms of "Covid," and there never have been. This topic has been extensively discussed, documented, and conclusively proven in previous articles on this Substack. The "novel Covid disease" was a complete lie.]

However, the reality has strangely been different for the past year and a half:

We don't have the “SARS virus” in isolated form. However, we do have a PCR test: If it's positive, we speak of a “coronavirus infection”, and the person who tests positive is considered to have “Covid”. Furthermore, it's often said that there are electron microscopic images of the virus. The "spiked" beads are even shown on the news!

So, do isolates exist after all? Or are isolates not necessary for “virus” detection? Or can a PCR test be produced without calibration?

Are there purified isolates?

In their presentations (5)(6), which are easily understandable even for laypeople, molecular biologist Dr. Andrew Kaufman and microbiologist Dr. Stefan Lanka demonstrate that the fundamental research reports claiming to demonstrate “SARS-CoV-1” or “SARS-CoV-2” and their gene sequences fail to do precisely this. None of the studies fulfill Koch's postulates—some of which are even admitted by the study authors themselves—that is, the microbiological criteria that must be met to prove a pathogen and its causality for a specific disease.

This doesn't necessarily mean that these coronaviruses don't exist. It simply means that they have not been proven – measured by microbiological criteria of truth. What is clear, however, is that a causal relationship between the pathogen and a specific disease, “Covid-19”, has not been established – precisely because the virus itself has not been proven.

But there are electron microscopic images, it is argued.

Such images do exist, but they are images of body fluids that have not been completely purified; the supernatants from ultracentrifuging the fluids do not contain just one type of particle, but a multitude of different particles, cell fragments, tissue pieces, tissue-specific exosomes, etc. The institutes that took these photos also admit this (4).

In short: “SARS-CoV-1” and -2 were not and are not available as purified isolates.

If not the isolate – what kind of virus do you have then?

With this question we approach the Platonism of virology.

What is present in the supernatant from centrifugation (3) are, among other particles, nucleic acids – which the virologist interprets as parts of the “viral” genome, i.e., does not recognize them, but only interprets them.

Using a molecular biology computer algorithm, the alignment method, he assembles these pieces (3) by " aligning" them with the gene sequences of previously studied viruses. Previously studied viruses, meaning: with models of viruses, because these previously identified "model" viruses were also constructs generated using the alignment method.

Gene sequences or nucleic acid segments missing from the supernatant, which the alignment procedure requires obtaining a complete model, are added – until the computer calculates a virus strand from the estimated 30,000 nucleotides.

This was the approach of the scientists who conducted the above-mentioned studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-1 and -2. What they obtain is a model of a virus, a purely "mental construct" (3)(7), as biologist Stefan Lanka notes.

However, we do not yet know whether this model corresponds to a real virus in the body fluid.

No return to empiricism

In order to conduct real empirical science, it would be appropriate now at the latest to check whether this virus model corresponds to a real virus.

At the latest now: Real microbiology should actually have tried first – before calculating a model – to isolate the virus in the patient's body fluid according to Koch's postulates, then to purify it and then to analyze it biochemically.

But okay, now the model has been generated using the alignment process. At least now it's time to start looking for the virus.

But the virologist did not and does not do that!

The Galileo in the Virologist

The virologist, too, practices Galilean science. He, too, must navigate between empiricism and theory. However, since Galilean science, as Platonic knowledge, is theory-heavy, the virologist, too, is in danger of seeing theory as more than a mental hypothesis. He, too, is in danger of viewing the mental construct as a more existential reality, which he can safely forgo testing in the weaker world of the test tube.

In addition, the mental construction of the virus acquires a special nobility by being generated in a world of ideas that is today considered the embodiment of the “objective mind” : the computer and its alignment algorithm.

For us in the future It won't just be the AI that "thinks" that will be intelligence in chip form. Today, virologists already consider computers to be minds in virology—and the software and the models it designs to be Platonic ideas and thus actual reality.

It is therefore no longer necessary to prove the constructs calculated by the computer in tangible reality: The beautiful computer mathematics is too beautiful to be wrong. To paraphrase Descartes: The virus models are calculated, therefore the viruses exist; the mental construct is consistent, therefore it exists.

Epidemiological scenarios

All this could be pure speculation.

But there is another indication that the world of theories, models, and software has a special status for virus scientists: the widespread, deep belief in epidemiological scenario modeling and the predictions of “pandemic” events based on it.

During the “swine flu pandemic”, ever new computer-generated scenarios about the course of the epidemic and the expected death toll were floated – and demonstrably, none of the predictions were accurate! Yet, each failed computer simulation was followed by another, which was believed anew. As if the previous failed attempt had never happened.

The same thing happened in 2020. There was no scenario that predicted the situation correctly. And yet, politicians relied on computers!

This, too, can only be explained if one assumes that computer simulation is not only trusted to provide insight into future reality, but that there is also a subconscious belief that the mathematical modeling of the epidemic event represents, in a sense, the archetype of the latter. With the corresponding assessment of the obvious event: One does not trust it and quickly forgets it – and turns to the new modeling.

If virology wants to become a science

For virology to become a science again, empiricism must be given priority in the research process. Thus, according to Koch's postulates, pathogens must be isolated, prepared in pure culture, and a causal relationship between the pathogen and a specific disease must be demonstrated.

Until that happens, PCR tests, infection rates, Covid mortality rates, incidence rates, and epidemiological scenarios lack any scientific basis—and are therefore nonsense.

The way virology is practiced today, it is nothing but a political tool. I fear that's precisely what politicians intend. The stubborn Platonism of virology and the interests of politics are pulling in the same direction!

Sources:

1. Werner Heisenberg, Steps Beyond Boundaries. 1971

2. Alexander Coyre, Galilee. Berlin 1988

3. Stefan Lanka, Misinterpretation of the Virus, in: Wissenschafftplus magazine 01/2020

4. Torsten Engelbrecht/Stefano Scoglio/Konstantin Demeter, Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2, in: Off-Guardian.org/2021/01/31)

5. Dr. Andrew Kaufman: Koch's Postulates – the Cornerstone of the "Plandemic"? www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfXnjmfUh5M

6. Dr. Stefan Lanka: What is a coronavirus? www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJql1LvD0&feature.youtu.be

7. A big request to Professor Ulrike Kämmerer – Telegraph, by Dr. Stefan Lanka https://telegra.ph/Eine-große-Bitte-an-Frau-Prof-Kämmerer-10-27

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Afterword

by Suavek

---

The author of the article possesses sufficient knowledge to definitively relegate the "virus" to the realm of myth. However, he doesn't do so, leaving the final judgment to the reader. Apparently, he is very familiar with the pedagogical principles of knowledge transfer, which I myself often forget.

According to these rules, no knowledge should be told to its conclusion, so that a small part, namely the final judgment of what is real and what isn't, can be figured out independently by the listener/reader at the end of the incompletely told story (which is supposed to contain sufficient information!). The path to this is sometimes not easy, especially if decades of indoctrination have been involved beforehand. In such cases, the listener/reader needs some time to thoroughly consider the information provided. However, a high level of education, such as that of a scientist, isn't necessarily always an advantage, because their education is linked to longer-term indoctrination. This can be the advantage of a professional driver who, so to speak, still has some "room" in their still-unwashed brain for the new information. I don't know if this can be proven neurosurgical, but in my limited experience, it could be the case. In a highly indoctrinated field of science, being a layperson can actually have its advantages. As if you were a blank slate, newly acquired information is easier to categorize and understand.

The facts presented by the author, and the mention of the gaps in the evidence, are enough to at least give us food for thought. For many, the information presented here, quite neutrally, may be enough to make a final intellectual leap in one or another independently chosen direction, a leap they hadn't previously dared to make.

The article ends with a list of the fundamentals that must first be met in order to prove the alleged "virus" AND its causal connection with the symptoms of the disease. However, this proof has not yet been provided. But why does Bernd Lukoschnik leave it open what he personally considers to be the truth? Is the author even aware that virology is a pure fraud, or is his own information not yet sufficient for him to decide? Does he perhaps consider the existence of viruses possible despite the lack of evidence? Although he uses the pedagogical trick of "not telling the whole story," he does leave us with a small hint on this question: Please take another look at the title of his clever article.

One final remark I can't withhold from you: Only with the clear results of Katherine Watt's work ( https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/ ) can the topic of "viruses" be fully understood. Only those who know the history of the slow changes in the legal framework in the field of "epidemiology" and can guess who benefits from these changes know the full truth about "viruses."

To understand the problem, it's helpful to realize that with the introduction of the CBDC and digital tyranny, any educational work will no longer be possible. It would therefore be advisable to accelerate one's own research on the "virus" in order to educate enough people about the WHOLE fraud in a timely manner. Only then is there still a chance of successfully resisting the totalitarian system and averting the worst, perhaps at the last minute.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Related articles :

…………………………………….

https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-virus-part-47

---

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The most reliable information on the “Covid” hoax and the deceptions of the system can be found in the statements of Dr. Mike Yeadon, at the links below :

---

---

Dr. Mike Yeadon's Substack #1 :

https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/

The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :

https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel

A collaborative Substack by Dr. Yeadon and Suavek ( Dr. Mike Yeadon's Substack #2 ) :

Fraud Prevention Hotline / suavek1.substack.com

---

DEAR FRIENDS,

The two Substacks, Dr. Yeadon's and Suavek's, have merged into a single, highly informative entity. The Fraud Prevention Hotline is now officially Dr. Yeadon's Substack No. 2. You can find his statement on this at the following link :

https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/my-other-substack

---

We urge you, if possible, to add both Substacks to your recommended list in your Substack. Thank you very much in advance,

Mike & Suavek

………………………………

The possible support goes to Suavek. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the 33 people who have supported my work so far with 5 euros per month or 50 euros per year.

You can either do something against or for something :

---

---