• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

David Icke Shouts Out: 'There Is No Bloody Virus!'

The Corona Conspiracy, Part 27

Frank Visser

Lab Leak Revisited

In the past few weeks the lab leak theory has made some kind of come back. While it has been mostly the exclusive narrative of conservative and conspiracy circles, especially since Donald Trump jumped upon this anti-Chinese story from the beginning of the pandemic, with his demise the picture has changed. The lab leak theory (not to mention the bio-weapon theory) is now seen as a legitimate option that requires proper investigation. In the WHO investigation report it was classified as "extremely unlikely", but soon after their report was published, the head of the WHO said that although a lab leak was the least likely cause, more research was needed, if not to prove it then at least to rule it out for good.[1]

Many independent researchers on Twitter have argued for months that there is a lot to be said for the idea that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab. They have now grouped themselves into an organization called DRASTIC, which lists 24 authors on their website. While it is very interesting to follow these lines of underground research, there is no way you and me can assess their validity so we have to rely on experts (who don't always agree either, but most still adhere to the natural origin paradigm). I do hope these findings are incorporated in the search for the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

A concerned letter was posted by a group of researchers in Science[2] arguing for more independent research into the lab leak question. It prompted an article in Nature[3] arguing that this renewed focus on a possible lab leak would hinder instead of help objective research, due to its geopolitical implications. Republicans have, in the spirit of Trump, jumped upon this opportunity to point the finger, again, to China.

We would do well to distinguish between four possible options here:

But this is not the purpose of this chapter. Virus denialists have been perplexed and even somewhat jealous of this recent upsurge of media attention towards the lab leak theory (or for the die-hards: the bio-weapon theory, see Part 17). They see it as a non-issue, for in their scientific universe viruses don't even exist, let alone artificially manipulated viruses. True to their conspirational spirit, they have suggested that we are misled by the authorities into another Psy-Op or orchestrated narrative meant to keep us in a permanent state of fear: if the virus has a natural origin or leaked from a lab makes no difference here. We are frightened to death anyways and fearful people can easily be oppressed.

‘A Calculated Diversion’

Recently David Icke, who is a virus denialist pur sang, released a video blog about this lab leak theory. In a hour-long casual talk from his home he presented, with his characteristic mix of eloquence and lunacy, his opinion that it is all a "calculated diversion".[4] It is worth going into, for Icke reaches a huge online audience[5], even though these ideas are not reflected in the mainstream scientific (natural origin) or even dissident-scientific (lab origin) literature. These are the real options, if we believe the virus denialists, and only the third one is valid.

That the virus might have escaped from a lab, is a "load of crap", says Icke. What should raise a red flag, he says, is that both the authorities and the media start moving in the same direction of making room for the lab origin theory (where it was for a long time dismissed as "conspiracy"). And since these institutions have lied to us from the start, why, he rhetorically asks his listeners, would they all of a sudden tell us the truth?

"There is no virus. It is a scam on that level. And when you grasp that, the whole house of cards comes down, not a single one of them still standing."

He suspects that the renewed interest in the lab leak theory serves only to reinforce the belief in a dangerous virus. "There is not." Icke says he had looked at the lab leak theory and it made no sense to him, because doctors and scientists ("who had done their homework") convinced him that there was no virus. This idea that there is no virus, "while it sounded absolutely ludicrous" when he talked about it in the Spring of 2020 (see Part 1), had gained some traction, he feels. But the media seem to have made a 180 regarding the lab leak. Why? To make us believe that there is a virus. To his disappointment, even Tucker Carlson bought the Wuhan lab leak (see Part 17).

So if you are still with me, we now have a conspiracy 2.0, a meta-conspiracy, that transcends the usual dichotomy so hotly debated in the press now of a natural origin vs. a lab leak paradigm clash. But we can turn Icke's logic on its hand too: if there is a virus, his whole conspirational house of cards will come tumbling down.

We have covered Icke's reasons for not believing in the existence of viruses many times (see Part 1), so we will not repeat that here. But it boils down to the old notion of exosomes looking very much like viruses (Part 2, Part 3 and Part4) under the microscope and viral genomes being arbitrarily put together from human genetic material (see Part 6). Icke is clueless about modern genomic technologies, nor does he care (and here he is in the company of Kaufman, Cowan, Lanka and Scoglio).

Kary Mullis comes along in this talk, who allegedly said the PCR test can't detect a virus (and here Icke sees parallels with the HIV/AIDS debate). Mullis, inventor of the PCR test and Nobel prize winner, in later life became an AIDS-denier—though not a HIV denier. Icke claims that, as was the case with AIDS, neither AIDS nor COVID-19 are a single disease, but a long list of ailments one can normally die of. With a positive PCR test, it is concluded one dies of the virus, but without such a positive test, one just dies of one of these very same diseases, he claims. But are AIDS and COVID-19 not identifiable syndromes at all? As it was said back then, one dies from the consequences of AIDS. Likewise, one dies of the many consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which are legion. Virus denialists always love to use this ploy.

Questioning Contagion

It is Tom Cowan who features in the second half of Icke's talk, so let's see how he fares with this "science authority" (see also Part 19). Cowan, remember, wrote the book The Contagion Myth, together with Sally Fallon Morell, and both of them co-authored with Andrew Kaufman the "Statement on Virus Isolation" (see Part 23). Cowan, and in his wake Icke and Kaufman, calls into question that any virus can cause any disease. Cowan describes how in viral cell culture, the cells are mixed with antibiotics and starved of nutrients, so they start to disintegrate. And how can you see that the resulting cell damage (called "CPE" or the "cytopathic effect") is the result of a virus and not of the very method of starvation? This is Stefan Lanka's thesis (see Part 7) in a nutshell.

Says a random page on viral culture[6]—doesn't really look to me as a starvation diet:

Cell culture media often includes a range of salts, vitamins, hormones and other growth factors, amino acids or proteins, glucose, antimicrobial agents, a buffering system, a pH indicator, and non-specific sources of nutrients such as foetal bovine serum.

Icke has apparently listened to Stefan Lanka, for he too mentions the need for control experiments, when virus is cultured in cells. This will prove, he believes, that the damage to cells is caused by the process, not the virus. Lanka has announced decisive experiments to prove his point, but these have not been completed or published.[7] Icke also believes the virus=exosome story spread by Kaufman: when cells are under stress due to toxins, radiation, 5G, environmental pressure, they emit particles called exosomes, as part of a detoxification and a means of communication to other parts of the body, signaling there's a problem. Researchers, seeing these particles in their microscopes, mistake them for viruses, and erroneously think their existence has been proven. Icke concludes: "And on that nonsense, the world has been transformed."

As we have described earlier, there is one major problem with this narrative: worldwide exosome-experts find them laughably incorrect (see Part 3 and Part 4). Some viruses may look similar to exosomes under a microscope, but others definitely do not. Not to mention the fact that viral genomes have been established in exquisite detail, which has enabled researchers to related them to similar viruses in genealogical trees, and produce vaccines in record time, based on their sequence patterns. This, however, remains a black box for virus denialists, who cannot understand how this has been accomplished (see Part 26).

Icke concludes in an appropriately low voice:

The bio-weapon is not the virus, it's the vaccine. The illusion of the virus is to justify the vaccine. Which isn't a vaccine but a genetically manipulated, a genetically transformative, synthetic gene therapy.

Cowan's book The Contagion Myth offers more details about his ideas, so I looked up some critical reviews.[8] One of these, by two authors of the Nature Institute—so not really a mainstream and materialistic source—offers more than a few glimpses into how Tom Cowan selectively reads scientific literature to make his points. They give many examples of how Cowan misrepresents scientific studies (from Koch's research on tuberculosis, to experiments with animals to prove SARS-CoV-2 infection, to research into the electomagnetic signals sent by bacteria). Koch's Postulates (see Part 16) feature prominently in Cowan's book, but here too, the reviewers point out that a rigid adherence to these postulate doesn't apply to viruses (something even Koch himself clearly understood). They quote Rivers, who formulated principles specifically applicable to viruses, as saying "progress having left behind old rules requires new ones which some day without doubt will also be declared obsolete." Cowan and company prefer to remain stuck in the nineteenth century.

The authors of the review conclude with sane judgment:

Cowan and Fallon Morell continue in a similar vein when it comes to the question of the isolation of viruses. They present one “gold standard” technique from a thesis of a German virologist, Stefan Lanka (1989). The hundreds or probably thousands of virologists who claim to have isolated viruses are all wrong, according to Cowan and Fallon Morell, because they use other methods to isolate viruses than the one Lanka developed. Lanka's technique is impressive, but it is not the only one. If you look in the literature, you find that there is no one “gold standard” for viral isolation...). We are not virologists and cannot assess their respective strengths and weaknesses. But we see no reason to think that all these scientists are deluded or making fraudulent claims, which is what Cowan and Fallon Morell believe they have shown.

Cowan and Fallon Morell write that “the entire world of medicine, virology, and immunology” is mistaken in believing that “many of our common diseases are viral in origin” (p. 67). Is there reason to believe that people who say “a disease is caused by infectious agents” are oversimplifying a highly complex relationship between a virus, its host organism, and the environment? Absolutely. Is it justified to dismiss 150 years of research that focuses on one aspect of that relationship? We don't think so.

A Case of Inverted Logic

A peculiar reversal of logic is demonstrated by most of these conspiracy thinkers. In the science view, the world encountered a pandemic last year, which required tests to be developed at lightning speed (which was accomplished) and vaccines at a comparable speed (which was accomplished as well in about a year). Conspiracy theory has it exactly backwards: the agenda of the Elite is to vaccinate all of humanity (why actually?), so that Big Pharma can get super-rich, which requires tests to be developed that produce false positives, so the evil governments of this world can always find reasons to prolong the lockdowns. And Big Pharma gets super-rich? Well, only a handful of the hundred companies working on vaccines. It's more a winner-takes-all situation.

And why would the Elite want to vaccinate everybody if there is no virus and no pandemic? Well, we get chipped if not sickened, and are registered so we can be tracked wherever we go. The non-vaccinated become second-rate citizens. Apartheid! Fascism! Dictatorship! Psychopaths! Do you see the lunatic logic at work here?

Reiner Fuellmich

Reiner Fuellmich[9], the lawyer who is preparing a class action suit against scientists (like Drosten) and politicians, for the damage done due to lockdown measures, adheres to the same inverted logic. For him, too, the pandemic is a planned phenomenon, a plandemic, based on PCR tests that have been specifically and intentionally designed to produce false positives (see Part 20 and Part 24). He also spreads the notion that PCR tests strictly speaking cannot determine if somebody is infected or infectious—overlooking the fact that in case of law a suspected infectiousness is enough to keep someone in temporary quarantine, for the sake of his own health and that of his fellow human beings.[10]

Fuellmich is the main player in the much hyped "Nuremberg 2.0" event (named after the original Nuremberg trials, a series of military tribunals held after World War II by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of war), which supposedly will accuse and convict many famous scientists and politicians for "crimes against humanity". What crimes?

Recall that QAnon followers also cherished these overheated fantasies of their opponents (especially "pedophile" Democrats) being put on trial for alleged crimes of child abuse (see Part 18). We all know what came of that, now that Trump has virtually disappeared from the political scene, and QAnon, which saw Trump as their savior, is in full disarray. When prophecy fails... some will double down even more.

Fuellmich has raised high expectations too, but his fame is restricted to the conspiracy underground scene. True, the economic and human costs of the lockdown measures have been substantial (see Part 22), but to compare the sincere efforts of scientists and politicians to prevent a deadly pandemic from spreading to the crimes committed in World War II is beyond ludicrous. Though Fuellmich doesn't go so far as to deny the existence of the virus, he uses the same logic as those who do, and denies its severity. It is an almost religious and apocalyptic fantasy of judgment and retribution, strongly resonating in the conspiracy world.

APPENDIX 1: WEAK VIRUS OR NO VIRUS?

An Alternative Defense of Viruses

Recently (February 2022) the virus denialists have received strong criticism from the regular lockdown skeptics about the existence of the virus (or any virus for that matter). Joseph Mercola, alternative medicine proponent and anti-vaxxer, hugely wealthy and Nr. 1 of the Disinformation Dozen, considers the favorite virus denialist’s argument that the virus has never been isolated “counterproductive.”[11]

As was to be expected, Christine Massey is challenging Mercola, McCullough, Kirsch and others about their belief in existence of this virus and any other virus. Let the virus-deniers and the alternative virus-accepters fight it out. Would be fun to watch!

This is the main argument by virus denialists: And because “it” has never been purified, we also know that “it” has never been sequenced... Instead, virologists have always worked with soups of material that they assume contains “the virus”. Strange soup! Let’s call it “the soup argument” - the only “argument” the virus denialists have. They ignore the exquisite and meaningful detail that can be distilled from this “soup”. They immediately go: La-la-la-la!

In response to Jeremy R. Hammond (who also defended viruses in March 2021, and criticized the health-freedom movement for not doing so[12]) Andrew Kaufman claims that virologists live on an island and don't talk with exosome scientists who would be able to tell them viruses and exosomes look very much alike. Well, I consulted three worldclass exosome specialists (see Part 4).

And guess what, they reject his ideas completely.

The Corona Investigative Committee

When Kaufman and Lanka were invited on February 5, 2022, to session nr. 90 of the German Corona Investigative Committee, headed by Reiner Fuellmich with Wolfgang Wodarg as sidekick, things got really testy (especially because Wodarg acknowledges viruses, while Fuellmich seems to be of two minds here). Obviously this was a clash between totally different health and disease paradigms, between the WEAK VIRUS camp of lockdown and PCR skeptics and the NO VIRUS camp of Kaufman, Lanka and Cowan. Both accused the other camp of not following the evidence.

Kaufman's initial statement speak volumes on the limitations of his approach (2:00):

I want to clarify that we are actually not presenting a theory. Because a theory would purport to explain natural phenomena. And what we are doing is actually refuting a theory. Because we haven't made a claim as to the cause of the disease. But there has been a claim made that there is a virus called SARS-CoV-2 and the claim has been made that there are many other viruses, and that those viruses cause a specific disease. And what we are doing is refuting the evidence put forth to satisfy that claim, because it is extremely faulty and perhaps even fraudulent at some level.

So I want to make it clear that the methods put forth to demonstrate the existence of these pathogenic viruses simply does not prove their existence at all.

What Kaufman fails to realize is that scientific theories are refuted by data, and not by half-baked and misunderstood interpretations of science. Wodarg, whatever you may think of him, stressed the need for believable alternative theories to explain disease.

The 1,5 hours spent with Kaufman and Lanka (between 4:15 and 5:45) can be viewed on the Odysee channel of the Corona Investigative Committee.

Fuellmich concluded that although he was not convinced the virus was ever isolated he did not think denying its very existence would help him in court. Stefan Lanka of course had a different experience since he “won” the Measles case some years ago (not true, see Part 5). He also stressed that even with this huge difference there was common ground to be found by both parties in that the pandemic was “planned”, the PCR test was “useless” and that the “criminals” had to be persecuted and jailed for a long time. And that compensations are in order.

Kaufman: "If there is no virus,
everything else if false."

Though Kaufman asserted he did not an alternative theory (nor did he need one, he claimed) Stefan Lanka claimed he did have one: all disease is psychosomatic. This is of course the German New Medicine of Ryke Geerd Hamer, which we have discussed many times (see Part 5 and Part 7).

So it is all about strategic alliances now: should the WEAK VIRUS camp ally with science against the NO VIRUS camp, or should both groups of lockdown skeptics ally against the BAD VIRUS camp of conventional science? What would make the best chance in court, Fuellmich asks.

Fuellmich thinks his chances to win in court are the highest when his focus is on the PCR test, that in his opinion cannot be used to determine if someone is infectious, and that is explicitly built to produce false positives (to establish a global “pandemic”).

I haven’t watched many episodes of the Corona Committe, but I can imagine this was a very animated and even heated one. Most of the time they invite only like minded people. What would happen if the Corona Committee would invite real and established virological scientists?

Typically, and decisively, this type of discourse only impresses the layman audience, not those who really work in virological labs. Psychiatrist Kaufman is the epitome of this layman’s skepticism: how can cell culture work? How can EM photography work? How can genomes work?

Response by Corona_Fakten

A furious - and understandably frustrated - 5.500 word response from the Kaufman-Lanka camp (source: Corona_Fakten Telegram channel, 97.000 subscribers) was published a day after the Corona Committee session by an anonymous author. Title "Quoten-Kritiker" or So-Called Critics.[13]

Why was the topic of the very existence of this virus not given more time, especially given that fact that the Committee had spent already 89 previous sessions on topics that avoided this subject altogether? And why could Wodarg spend much time on defending the conventional view? I agree that the question "does this SARS-CoV-2 virus exist?" is the most important one. It is the first item in my list of 15 aspects of the pandemic that can be questioned. More than its contagiousness or harmfulness. And, true, it is seldom raised.

So obviously, the non-existence of this (and any other) virus was simply a bridge too far for the Corona Investigative Committee, even after two years of being busy investigating the pandemic. There is evidently a paradigm clash between two different views of health and disease.

However, the objection that Lanka didn't publish his finding in respected scientific journals was not totally wrong. Even if he only publishes in his own Wissenschaft+, he should make it explicit what protocols he has followed in his "control experiments". From everything I have read and watched from Kaufman and Lanka, I get the strong idea that they don't have the faintest idea how Whole Genome Sequencing works. Their understanding is at the entry level and full of freshman-skepticism.

Response by Project Immanuel

On February 9, 2022, the pro-Lanka Project Immanuel published the following statement:

A missed opportunity?
A short statement on the 90th meeting of the (unofficial) German Corona Inquiry Committee, to which, amongst others, Dr Stefan Lanka and his colleague Dr Andrew Kaufman, were invited.
Immanuel Project always aims to take an neutral standpoint. That is one of our declared goals. We neither defame people, nor do we take anyone's side. Therefore, this statement will primarily deal with some statements by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg on the subject of medicine, virology and scientific principles, which we want to discuss in more detail.
Nevertheless, we have to say at this point that we too are very disappointed by the Corona Investigative Committee and are of the opinion that the committee cannot claim to have made an attempt to seriously deal with the virus evidence issue.

APPENDIX 2: THE PUBLIC "GRAND JURY"

On February 5, 2022, the first session of a "public Grand Jury" was performed, lead by Reiner Fuellmich, a group of attornies and a judge (see www.grand-jury.net). This has been extremely long in the making, but contrary to what you might think, this is a show process.

As this website clarifies:

We, a group of international lawyers and a judge, hereby are conducting criminal investigation modelled after the United States Grand Jury proceedings. This Grand Jury Investigation serves as a model legal proceeding to present to a jury (consisting of the citizens of the world) all available evidence of COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against ‘leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices’ who aided, abetted or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic.

Crimes to be investigated include all acts performed or omitted by a person in pursuance of a common design to commit Crimes Against Humanity, and all such criminal acts condemned in the various communities of jurors around the world.

Reiner Fuellmich "Our governments are not our governments anymore."	Rui Fonseca E Castro "The most fundamental rights and freedoms have been taken from us."

It soon becomes clear why this whole theater has been set up:

Having been unable to find a court to hear the actual evidence in the current system’s courts of law, we are undertaking this proceeding outside of the current system and based on natural law.

The ‘Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion’s investigation’s purpose is twofold: On the one hand it is to serve as a model proceeding and get indictments against some of the criminally and civilly responsible figure heads of these Crimes against Humanity.

And on the other hand it is—through showing a complete picture of what we are facing—to create awareness about the factual collapse of the current hijacked system and its institutions, and, as a consequence the necessity for the people themselves retaking their sovereignty, and the necessity to first stop this plandemics measures by refusing to comply, and the necessity to jump-start their own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be reestablished.

The name of the Portuguese pandemic-denying judge is Rui Fonseca E Castro. He was disciplined by the Superior Council of Magistrature but called them "pedophiles". He was removed from the magistrature as a judge on October 7, 2021.[14]

More about Rui Fonseca e Castro can be found on his (Italian) Wikipedia page.

NOTES

[1] "Coronavirus: More work needed to rule out China lab leak theory says WHO", bbc.com, March 31, 2021.

[2] Jesse D. Boom et al., "Investigate the origins of COVID-19", Science, Letters, May 14, 2021.

[3] Amy Maxmen, "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers", Nature, News, May 27, 2021.

[4] "Wuhan Lab 'Virus' Leak: A Calculated Diversion From The Simple Truth - There Is No 'Virus' - David Icke", davidicke.com, May 31, 2021.

[5] The video, which is hosted on banned.video, has received almost 300.000 viewers in 5 days (and is available from other conspiracy platforms as well).

[6] "Personal Study: Virus Culture", Simullab Testing Laboratory.

[7] Stefan Lanka, "Dr Stefan Lanka's Latest Control Experiments on the Cytopathic Effect Refute Viruses", www.bitchute.com

[8] Craig Holdrege & Jon McAlice, "Some Comments on The Contagion Myth", www.natureinstitute.org, 2021.

[9] "Video: "Crimes Against Humanity": The German Corona Investigation. "The PCR Pandemic"", www.globalresearch.ca, October 2020. A video lecture by Fuellmich, explaining his view of the plandemic and his legal plan of approach.

[10] Fuellmich doesn't seem to be very successful in court. Here's the verdict ("Aviles v. De Blasio, Feb. 3, 2021") of a New York judge about the reliability of the PCR test:

Source: "Füllmich und die Klage in New York … abgewiesen (Update)", anonleaks.net, March 15, 2021.

[11] Joseph Mercola, "Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus", media.mercola.com, no date (the article is behind a pay wall at Substack).

[12] Bretigne, "What are we getting wrong? Jeremy Hammond takes the health-freedom movement to task", www.bitchute.com, March 9th, 2021.

[13] Corona_Fakten auf Telegram, "Quoten-Kritiker", telegra.ph, February 06, 2022.

[14] Natasha Donn, "Pandemic negationist judge in on-air meltdown", www.portugalresident.com, 8th September 2021.