Mythos Ansteckung

---

His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes.

When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients.

Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face.

None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results.

He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.

The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results. It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.

 

Some Interesting Though Unsuccessful Attempts To Transmit Influenza Experimentally.
How great are the difficulties surrounding the study of the nature of the virus of influenza is indicated by the following summary of two series of experiments recently carried out, one at Boston and one at San Francisco.

BOSTON EXPERIMENTS
These experiments were carried on jointly by Lieut. Commander M. J. Rosenau, Medical Corps, U. S. N. R. F., and Lieut. W. J. Keegan, Medical Corps, U. S. N. R. F. and by Surg. Joseph Goldberger and Asst. Surg. G. C. Lake, United States Public Health Service, at the United States Quarantine Station, Gallop’s Island, Boston, Mass.

The subjects of experiment were 68 volunteers from the United States Naval Detention Training Camp, Door Island, Boston. These volunteers had been exposed in some degree to an epidemic of influenza at the training camp or at some station prior to coming to Door Island; 47 of the men wore without history of an attack of influenza during the recent epidemic and 39 of those were without history of an attack of such illness at any time during their lives.

The experiments consisted of inoculations with pure cultures of Pfeiffer’s bacidus, with secretions from the upper respiratory passagos, and with blood from typical cases of influenza.

The study was begun on November 13 with an experiment in which a suspension of a freshly isolated culture of Pfeiffer’s bacillus was instilled into the nose of each of 3 nonimmunes and into 3 controls who had a history of an attack in the present epidemic.

None of these volunteers showed any reaction following this inoculation. Another experiment was made at a later date with a suspension of a number of different pure cultures of Pfeiffer’s bacillus, of which 4 were recently isolated. Ten presumably nonimmune volunteers wore inoculated, with the same negative results.

Three sets of experiments were made with secretions, both unfiltered and filtered, from the upper respiratory tract of typical cases of influenza in the active stage of the disease. In these experiments a total of 30 men were subjected to inoculation by means of spray, swab, or both, of the nose and throat.

The interval elapsing between securing secretions from the donors and inoculation of the volunteers was progressively reduced in these experiments so that in the third of the series the interval at most was 30 seconds. In no instance was an attack of influenza produced in any one of the subjects.

An experiment was made in which the members of one of the groups of volunteers which had been subjected to inoculation with secretions were exposed to a group of cases of influenza in the active stage of the disease in a manner intended to simulate conditions which in nature are supposed to favor the transmission of the disease.

Each of this group of 10 volunteers came into close association for a few minutes with each of 10 selected cases of influenza in the wards of the Chelsea Naval Hospital.

At the time the volunteers were exposed to this infection the cases were from 10 to 84 hours from the onset of their illness and 4 of them were not over 24 hours after the onset.

Each volunteer conversed a few minutes with each of the selected patients, who were requested to, and coughed into the face of each volunteer in turn, so that each volunteer was exposed in this manner to all 10 cases.

The total exposure amounted to about three-quarters of an hour for each volunteer. None of those volunteers developed any symptoms of influenza following this experiment.

Advantage was taken of the opportunity for making this study to attempt to confirm the reported positive results of transmission of influenza by Nicolle. Secretions from 5 typical cases of influenza were secured, filtered, and some of the filtrate was inoculated subcutaneously into each of the group of 10 volunteers.

At the same time blood was drawn from the same cases and pooled, and some of the mixed blood injected subcutaneously into each of another group of 10 volunteers.

The time lost between drawing the blood and inoculating it in no case exceeded three-quarters of an hour. None of the men subjected to these inoculations developed any evidences of illness.

In the foregoing experiments the patients serving as donors belonged to groups from epidemic foci either on shipboard or at institutions. The great majority indeed belonged in a group from an epidemic on board the U. S. S. Yacona. Of the personnel of this vessel, 95 in number, 80, or 84 percent, were stricken with the disease in an epidemic between November 17 and 29.

SAN FRANCISCO EXPERIMENTS.
The following observations were carried out practically simultaneously with those described above. The work was done at the Angel Island Quarantine Station, San Francisco, Cal., utilizing volunteers from the Yerba Buena Naval Training Station, San Francisco.

The experiments were carried on jointly by Surg. G. W. McCoy, of the United States Public Health Service, and Lieut. De Wayne Richey, United States Navy.

The volunteers who were used in these experiments differed from those used at Boston in two respects—first, the personnel of the Yerba Buena Station had not been exposed to influenza in the present epidemic and were therefore presumed not to possess any special natural immunity; second, all of the men had been vaccinated with large doses of a bacterial vaccine containing Pfeiffer’s bacilli, the three fixed types of pneumococci and hæmolytic streptococci.

We are not prepared at present to state what influence this vaccination may have had in promoting resistance to influenza infection, but if we may judge by the results of controlled experiments elsewhere such vaccination may for the present purpose be ignored.

 

Editorial Note
The foregoing experiments, though extremely interesting, do not, of course, warrant final conclusions. It is hoped that it may be possible to carry the studies further and that results may be obtained that will definitely settle the nature and the modo of spread of the virus of epidemic influenza.

For the present the sanitarian will do well to continue to apply the general principles of control that are based on the justifiable assumption that the disease is a droplet infection, giving, however, increased attention to a point that is suggested by these experiments—namely, an infective period at the very earliest stages of the attack.

It would seem to be wise to give renewed emphasis to the importance of going to bed at the slightest indications of illness.

Abstract of the AMA Article, 1919
1377. Experiments to Determine the Mode of Spread of Influenza. Milton J. Rosenau. J. Am. M. Assn., Chicago, 1919, 73, 311.

Experiments to determine the mode of spread of influenza were carried out on Gallops Island. One hundred volunteers were mostly between 18 and 25 years, while a few were about 30. Pure cultures of Pfeiffer’s bacillus were administered to some of the volunteers but failed to produce the disease.

Large quantities of a mixture of 13 strains of the Pfeiffer bacillus were suspended and the suspension sprayed into the nose, eyes and throat of 19 volunteers. This experiment was also negative. Next 1 cc. of the mucous discharges of patienta was sprayed into the nostrils, throat and eyes, also without producing disease.

The blood from patients suffering from influenza was injected in 10 cc. quantities into each of 10 volunteers without producing disease. Ten volunteers were then brought into close contact with 10 patients and though the patients breathed and coughed into the faces of the volunteers no disease appeared.

Similar experiments were conducted at Portsmouth with the result that half of the volunteers came down with fever and sore throat caused by hemolytic streptococci. The author concludes that we are still ignorant of the true mode of spread of influenza. – P. G. H.

Abstract from Influenza: An Epidemiologic Study, 1921
These results with sleeping contacts form an interesting link in the chain of evidence started in 1918 by the U. S. Navy and Public Health Service, reported by Rosenau and McCoy, and others. These experimenters working in Boston and San Francisco carried out inoculation experiments on human volunteers.

The work in Boston, as reported by Rosenau, was carried on with 100 volunteers from the Navy between the ages of eighteen and thirty, most of them between eighteen and twenty-five; all of them entirely well, and except for a few controls, none having experienced known attacks of influenza previously.

First, suspensions of thirteen different strains of influenza bacilli, all from cases of influenza during the epidemic, were sprayed into the nose, eyes, and throat of nineteen volunteers. None of them took sick.

Next, secretions from the mouth, nose, throat, and bronchi of acute cases of influenza were collected, pooled, and without filtration sprayed into each nostril, into the throat during inspiration, and onto the conjunctiva of each of the ten volunteers.

None of them took sick. Some of this same material was filtered through a porcelain filter and administered in the same manner, with similar results.

One cubic centimeter of each type was administered to each individual. The interval between the time of collection and injection time was then decreased to one hour and forty minutes, the minimum time in which the material could be transferred from the hospital to the experiment station.

The same results were obtained. This time six cubic centimeters were administered to each individual. Finally, transfer was made directly with swabs from one individual’s nose, throat, and nasopharynx to another in nineteen cases. None developed the disease.

 

Bibliography
1.) Excerpt from Alternative Etiologies, Other Vaccines, in Public Health Report, Vol. 125, No. 1, January/February 2010, Supplement 3: Science, Microbiology, and Vaccines in 1918, p.33.

2.) “Some Interesting Though Unsuccessful Attempts to Transmit Influenza Experimentally,” in Public Health Reports, Vol. 34, No. 2, 10 January 1919, pp. 33-36.

3.) “Diseases of the Respiratory System: Entry 1377. Experiments to Determine the Mode of Spread of Influenza. Milton J. Rosenau. J.,” in Abstracts of Bacteriology, Vol. III, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1919, p. 234.

4.) Rosenau, M. J.- ” Experiments by Volunteers to determine the Mode of Spreading Influenza,” Med. Record, 1919, xcvi., p. 214.

5.) Rosenau, M. J.— ” Experiment to determine the mode of spread of influenza ,” Jour. Am. Med. Ass., 1919, LXXIII, 311.

6.) Warent T. Vaughan, M.D., Influenza: An Epidemiologic Study, in The American Journal of Hygiene, Pennsylvania: The New Era Printing Company, Monographc Series No. 1, 1921.

7.) Rosenau MJ, Last JM. Maxcy-Rosenau preventative medicine and public health. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1980.

 

Experimente zum Nachweis der Ansteckung

1. Im März 1919 führten Rosenau & Keegan 9 separate Experimente an einer Gruppe von 49 gesunden Männern durch, um eine Ansteckung zu beweisen. In allen 9 Experimenten wurden 0/49 Männer krank, nachdem sie mit kranken Menschen oder Körperflüssigkeiten kranker Menschen ausgesetzt waren.
https://jamanetwork.com/jour/jama/article-abstract/221687

2. Im November 1919 wurden von Rosenau et al. 8 separate Experimente mit einer Gruppe von 62Männern durchgeführt, um zu beweisen, dass die Grippe ansteckend ist und Krankheiten verursacht. Bei allen 8 Experimenten wurden 0/62 Männer krank. Eine weitere Reihe von 8 Experimenten wurde im Dezember 1919 von McCoy et al. mit 50 Männern durchgeführt, um die Ansteckung zu beweisen.

Auch hier konnte in allen 8 Experimenten nicht nachgewiesen werden, dass Menschen mit Influenza oder deren Körperflüssigkeiten Krankheiten verursachen. 0/50 Männer wurden krank. 1919 führten Wahl et al. drei separate Experimente durch, um 6 gesunde Männer mit Influenza zu infizieren, indem sie sie Schleimsekreten und Lungengewebe von Kranken aussetzten. 0/6 Männer erkrankten in einer der drei Studien an Influenza.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30082102

3. 1920 führten Schmidt et al. zwei kontrollierte Experimente durch, bei denen gesunde Menschen den Körperflüssigkeiten kranker Menschen ausgesetzt wurden. Von 196 Personen, die den Schleimsekreten kranker Menschen ausgesetzt waren, entwickelten 21 (10,7 %) eine Erkältung und drei eine Grippe (1,5 %). In der zweiten Gruppe entwickelten von den 84 gesunden Personen, die den Schleimsekreten von Kranken ausgesetzt waren, fünf die Grippe (5,9 %) und vier eine Erkältung (4,7 %). Von dreiundvierzig Kontrollpersonen, die mit sterilen physiologischen Salzlösungen geimpft worden waren, erkrankten acht (18,6 %) an Erkältungen. Der Prozentsatz der Personen, die mit Kochsalzlösung geimpft wurden, war höher als der der Personen, die mit dem “Virus” geimpft wurden.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857

4. 1921 versuchten Williams et al., 45 gesunde Männer experimentell mit Erkältung und Influenza zu infizieren, indem sie sie den Schleimsekreten von Kranken aussetzten. 0/45 wurden krank.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857

5. 1924 setzten Robertson & Groves 100 gesunde Personen den Körpersekreten von 16 verschiedenen Grippepatienten aus. Die Autoren kamen zu dem Schluss, dass 0/100 als Folge der Exposition gegenüber den Körpersekreten krank wurden.
https://academic.oup.com/article/34/4/400/832936

6. 1930 versuchten Dochez et al., eine Gruppe von Männern experimentell mit der Erkältung zu infizieren. Die Autoren stellten in ihren Ergebnissen etwas fest, das geradezu erstaunlich ist. “Es zeigte sich sehr früh, dass diese Person mehr oder weniger unzuverlässig war, und es war von Anfang an möglich, sie über unser Verfahren im Unklaren zu lassen. Er hatte unauffällige Symptome nach der Testinjektion von steriler Brühe und keine auffälligeren Ergebnisse durch das Kältefiltrat, bis ein Assistent am zweiten Tag nach der Injektion versehentlich auf diese ausbleibende Erkältung hinwies. An diesem Abend und in dieser Nacht meldete der Proband starke Symptome, darunter Niesen, Husten, Halsschmerzen und verstopfte Nase. Am nächsten Morgen wurde ihm mitgeteilt, dass er über die Art des Filtrats falsch informiert worden war, und seine Symptome klangen innerhalb einer Stunde ab. Es ist wichtig festzustellen, dass es keinerlei objektive pathologische Veränderungen gab.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869798

7. 1937 führten Burnet & Lush ein Experiment durch, bei dem 200 gesunde Menschen Körperausscheidungen von Influenza-Infizierten ausgesetzt wurden. 0/200 wurden krank. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065253 8. 1940 versuchten Burnet und Foley, 15 Universitätsstudenten experimentell mit Influenza zu infizieren. Die Autoren kamen zu dem Schluss, dass ihr Experiment ein Fehlschlag war.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065253

8. 1940 versuchten Burnet und Foley, 15 Universitätsstudenten experimentell mit Influenza zu infizieren. Die Autoren kamen zu dem Schluss, dass ihr Experiment ein Fehlschlag war.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1940.tb79929.x

Experiments to prove contagion

1. In March of 1919 Rosenau & Keegan conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/221687

2. In November 1919, 8 separate experiments were conducted by Rosenau et al. in a group of 62 men trying to prove that influenza is contagious and causes disease. In all 8 experiments, 0/62 men became sick. Another set of 8 experiments were undertaken in December of 1919 by McCoy et al. in 50 men to try and prove contagion. Once again, all 8 experiments failed to prove people with influenza, or their bodily fluids cause illness. 0/50 men became sick. In 1919, Wahl et al. conducted 3 separate experiments to infect 6 healthy men with influenza by exposing them to mucous secretions and lung tissue from sick people. 0/6 men contracted influenza in any of the three studies.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30082102?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

3. In 1920, Schmidt et al conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102609951

4. In 1921, Williams et al. tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857

5. In 1924, Robertson & Groves exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. The authors concluded that 0/100 became sick as a result of being exposed to the bodily secretions.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/34/4/400/832936?redirectedFrom=fulltextA

6. In 1930, Dochez et al. attempted to infect a group of men experimentally with the common cold. The authors stated in their results, something that is nothing short of amazing. “It was apparent very early that this individual was more or less unreliable and from the start it was possible to keep him in the dark regarding our procedure. He had inconspicuous symptoms after his test injection of sterile broth and no more striking results from the cold filtrate, until an assistant, on the second day after injection, inadvertently referred to this failure to contract a cold.

That evening and night the subject reported severe symptomatology, including sneezing, cough, sore throat and stuffiness in the nose. The next morning he was told that he had been misinformed in regard to the nature of the filtrate and his symptoms subsided within the hour. It is important to note that there was an entire absence of objective pathological changes”.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869798

7. In 1937 Burnet & Lush conducted an experiment exposing 200 healthy people to bodily secretions from people infected with influenza. 0/200 became sick. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065253

8. In 1940, Burnet and Foley tried to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1940.tb79929.x

---

18.09.2020: Erfolglose Ansteckungsversuche ohne Maske und der damit verbundene Maskenbetrug

---

Festplattenfund. Zur Bestandserhaltug und aus bleibendem aktuellem Anlaß.

2007: Hans Tolzin: Angst vor dem Erreger? Infektionshypothese auf dem Prüfstand
Flugblatt zum 4. Stuttgarter Impfsymposium 2007.

Flyer als pdf: Angst vor dem Erreger¿ Impf-Symposium 2007

Komm.: Üblicherweise ist von einer Infektionstheorie die Rede, Infektionshypothese ist aber aus impfkritischer Sicht die präzisere Bezeichnung, da eine Theorie eine Anschauung ist, die beim Erregermodell aber schwach und höchst selektiv ist.

---

Mythos Ansteckung
23. Dec. 2011: The Myth Of Contagion, a discussion with T.C. Fry

 

Siehe auch:
Misslungene Ansteckungsversuche
The Infectious Myth_ A Book Project by David Crowe, pdf-Sicherung der Webseite The Infectious Myth.
Ansteckung aus Sicht der 5BN – Kent-Depesche  4+5/2018.

---

Denkfehler der Pharmamedizin

1. “Das Fehlverständnis von Krankheit als primäres Resultat von außen eindringender Krankheitserreger erzeugt naturgemäß stets den Verdacht, daß bei neuen Krankheiten eine noch nicht identifizierte Infektionskrankheit vorliegt. Dieser Denkfehler der Pharmamedizin führt zu folgenschweren Fehldiagnosen und Therapien. Daß schließlich auch ärztlicherseits verursachte (iatrogene) Schäden letztendlich der Auslöser sein könnten, geht verständlicherweise erst gar nicht in die Köpfe des etablierten und selbstherrlichen Medizin-Establishments.”
– Prof. Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, “Zum Geleit”, in: Michael Leitner: Mythos HIV, Niebüll 2000, S. 11.

2. “Die meisten Infektionskrankheiten sind in Wirklichkeit Injektionskrankheiten.”
– Peter Schulz (Red. IMPULS Magazin)

---

Die Lügen der Infektionstheorie Teil 1

https://youtu.be/m7jQta3Mngo

---

Mythos Ansteckung
Sensation: Europas führende Infektologen bringen die Infektionstheorie zu Fall
Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Lanka

Am 14. Mai 2013, dem 217sten Jahrestag der ersten Impfung durch Edward Jenner, veröffentlichen die führenden europäischen Anhänger der Infektionstheorie ihre Ergebnisse jahrelanger Untersuchungen. Sie stellten fest, dass alle Arten von „Krankheits-Erregern“, nach denen sie in Kinder suchten, immer auch in gleicher Zahl und Art in gesunden Kindern vorhanden sind.

Leser von Wissenschafftplus verwundert das nicht, denn die Grundlage des Lebens ist der Zusammenhalt, die Symbiose. Auf Ebene der Bakterien, Zellen, Gewebe und Organe gibt es keinen Kampf und ein solcher wurde dort noch nie beobachtet. Kampf gibt es nur zwischen mehrzelligen Organismen, wenn die Ressourcen knapp werden.

Durch Veranstaltungen und Veröffentlichungen mache ich seit 1986 auf diese Fakten und Zusammenhänge aufmerksam, auf die ich während meinem Studium der Biologie gestoßen bin. Seit 2003 veröffentliche ich Ergebnisse meiner Forschungen in einem alle zwei Monate erscheinenden Magazin, aus dem Wissenschafftplus hervorgegangen ist.

Zuerst versuchten die Forscher um den führenden „Vogel- und Schweinegrippe-Virologen“ Albert D.M.E. Osterhaus das „heimtückischste“ aller Bakterien, Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, in kranken Kindern nachzuweisen. Dieses Bakterium kommt wie alle Bakterien überall vor, wird in der Öffentlichkeit aber immer noch als supergefährlich ausgegeben, da es sehr klein ist und keine Zellwand hat.

So wird behauptet, dass Mycoplasma Pneumoniae lebensgefährliche Lungen- und Hirnhaut-Entzündungen verursacht, Nerven, Gehirn, Ohren, Herz und Blut angreift etc., obwohl es wie überall in der Infektionstheorie nie wissenschaftliche Beweise hierfür gab. Wird es in kranken Kindern „nachgewiesen“, werden ganze Einrichtungen geschlossen und alle Menschen, die mit dem Kind Kontakt hatten, mit gefährlichen Chemo-Antibiotika zwangsbehandelt.

Die Wissenschaftler wollten zu Beginn ihrer Studie beweisen, dass die Anwesenheit von diesem Bakterium andere Infektionskrankheiten verschlimmert und erschwert.

Nun geschah aber das Wunder

Zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Infektionstheorie veröffentlichten die Forscher ihre Kontrollexperimente. Sie stellten fest, dass wenn sie in gesunden Kindern auf die gleiche Art und Weise wie in kranken Kindern nach diesem Bakterium suchten, es auch überall in gesunden Kindern gefunden haben.

Mehr noch, sie erweiterten ihre Suche auf andere „Erreger“ und haben auch hier das Gleiche festgestellt: Alles wonach sie als “Krankheitsverursacher” suchten, fanden sie auch in Gesunden.

Keine Entwarnung

Die Forscher wollen sich allerdings nicht eingestehen, dass alles, was sie bisher im Rahmen der klassischen Infektionstheorie taten, sinnlos und teils auch gefährlich war. Deswegen führen sie wie in der Krebsforschung auf Grundlage der Vererbungstheorie und Gentechnik die „individuelle Infektiologie“ ein. In zehn bis zwanzig Jahren soll erforscht sein, wie unsere Gene mit den Genen der Erreger in Wechselwirkung treten, denn Ansteckung und Krankheit könne nur individuell erklärt und behandelt werden.

Wie die Biologie in Wirklichkeit funktioniert, erfahren Sie in unseren Veröffentlichungen und Veranstaltungen zu „Die Chemie muss stimmen!“ am 20. bis 23. Juni in Österreich und am 6. und 7. Juli am Bodensee.

Informationen hierüber finden Sie in unserer aktuellen Ausgabe von „Wissenschafftplus“, die Sie kostenlos und unverbindlich, weil unsere beschädigte Internetseite immer noch nicht funktioniert, unter info2@wissen-schafft-plus.de anfordern können.

Ihr Dr. rer. nat. Stefan T. J. Lanka, Langenargen

– Auszug aus dem WissenSchafftPlus Newsletter vom 13.06.2013. Mit freundlicher Genehmigung.

 

Siehe auch ExtremNews vom 14.06.2013: Sensation: Europas führende Infektologen bringen die Infektionstheorie zu Fall.

---

14.01.2015: Es gibt keine Ansteckung ! Andreas Baumeister & NEUE MEDIZIN | Bewusst.TV

---

HOW PLUMBING (NOT VACCINES) ERADICATED DISEASE
Joel Edwards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---