Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on telegram
Share on whatsapp

CIC, Session 90 – “The Virus of Power”

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on telegram
Share on email
Share on print

Feb 09, 2022

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 aims to enlighten, to provide factual information from the fields of science and to take an appropriately neutral standpoint. Although we may occasionally criticise someone’s statements, decisions or actions, we do not attack anyone personally, nor do we take anyone’s side. Therefore, we do not want to say too much about this particular session, yet we would like to address certain statements made by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg on the subject of science and the virus evidence issue.

Without going into detail at this point, we feel that the session bore the inappropriate title, “The Virus of Power” and we too are very disappointed by the meeting itself and are of the opinion that the committee cannot claim to have made an attempt to seriously deal with the virus evidence issue.

The Corona Committee of Inquiry took a very combative approach towards the Corona Crisis many months ago, as Dr. Reiner Fuellmich himself has made clear in various interviews, they are primarily concerned with proving that the Corona crisis is a major, premeditated crime. This confrontational approach is already in stark contrast to Dr. Lanka’s more neutral approach which shows that the Corona Crisis is first and foremost the inevitable result of misguided developments in both science and society. No one denies that a great many entities from politics and business shamelessly exploit the Corona Crisis for their own purposes and interests. If the virus evidence issue and the work of Dr. Lanka had been seriously addressed, the Committee would automatically have had to question many of its previous findings, conclusions, accusations and expert opinions.
The investigative approaches taken are so contrasting, to the point that a genuine scientific discourse and cooperation appears to be out of the question. Therefore, in our view, one cannot speak of a wasted opportunity in the session, as there never was a real opportunity.
Will cooperation be conceivable at some point in the future? Will the parties involved make a second attempt and achieve a respectful dialogue? Time will tell, but at the moment we aren’t optimistic about this.

– – –

To clarify a few things, here are a few comments on statements made by Dr. Wodarg on the topics of medicine, virology and ways out of the crisis.

Regarding the infection theory
Dr Wodarg’s first point against Dr Lanka’s and Dr Kaufman’s statements on the lack of viral proof was the allegedly proven contagion in ‘rabies’. Apart from the fact that this argumentation was completely out of place at that point in the discussion and in no way invalidated Dr Kaufman’s previous statements, it is also a typical argument used in orthodox medicine to shut down discussion, it’s believed to destroy any criticism since it is assumed that in the case of rabies infection one provides irrefutable facts. But this is not the case at all. On the contrary, this point can be easily refuted.
To this day, infection is a theory based primarily on visual inspection. This is no different to so-called Corona infections, even when a meaningless PCR test is additionally conducted. The RKI’s COVID-19 case definition states that epidemiological confirmation is present if:
– There is an “epidemiological link with a laboratory-diagnosed infection in humans through human-to-human transmission,” which means nothing other than two positive PCR tests.
– And an “Occurrence of two or more pneumonias (specific clinical picture) in a medical facility, nursing home or home for the elderly, where an epidemic link is probable or suspected, even without the presence of pathogen evidence,” i.e., diagnosed purely by appearance and personal assessment of the attending physician.

For every case in which there was alleged transmission of some disease from one person to another, there is at least one other case in which there was no infection. Conventional medicine uses several ‘jokers’ in those obvious contradictions to maintain the theory of infection.
One of them is the ‘immune system’ argumentation. Why did this person not get sick even though he was exposed to a risk of infection? Clearly, they had a strong immune system. Why did this person get sick even though he protected himself so well? Clearly, they had a weak immune system. With the claim of the immune system alone, countless contradictions in orthodox medical concepts can be justified quite easily, especially since the claim cannot be proven and tested. Corona experts also constantly use the ‘immune system joker’ to explain and justify all kinds of things.
Dr. Lanka has already explained what supposed ‘antibodies’ are in several interviews and we will also go into the whole subject of the immune system in more detail in the course of our project.

Dr. Wodarg’s point about the supposed transmissibility of rabies is based on mere visual appraisal combined with meaningless laboratory tests and is comparable to saying: “How can the earth be a sphere? Let’s look at the horizon, it looks flat. There is no curvature of the earth visible from this vantage point.” It is certainly possible to explain how this appearance comes about, but for that one would have to explain many more things.

Regarding virus evidence
We vehemently disagree with Dr. Wodarg’s statement that the virus evidence question would get us nowhere in the Corona crisis! The exact opposite is the case, it is the all-important question!
As we said in one of our earlier articles the big mistake that Wodarg and others made with the supposed swine flu of 2009 was that they only ever put the narrative into perspective, but never questioned the basis of it all, the existence of the virus. As in, ‘Of course the virus existed, it was just not as dangerous as officially claimed!’ The result of this kind of argumentation was that the health authorities then simply determined that critics would have to be summarily censored during the next pandemic (as written in the Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Volume 53, Issue 12 of December 2010), which is exactly what we are all experiencing now at the time of Corona. If we make the same mistake again, simply juggling numbers and relativising the narrative rather than questioning the fundamentals, it won’t be the next supposed ‘pandemic’ that gets worse, but the measures certainly will become worse. It’s possible that next time it will no longer be possible to form a ‘critical scene’ because criticism will be summarily made a punishable offence.

Regarding Scientific Principles
Contrary to Dr. Wodarg’s questionable portrayal of scientific work, the virus evidence issue is not something merely academic for experts to discuss, it is about very tangible evidence that has to be produced and tested using concrete scientific procedures.
Does a microscopic parasitic organism exist that infects other organisms and makes them sick? Can an organism suspected of being a potential pathogen be found in a sick individual? If so, can you isolate it and thus prove that it is a distinct structure? If so, can you biochemically characterise the structure and prove that all these structures are always the same? If so, can one prove that this particular structure is responsible for causing a disease and furthermore, always triggers the same disease? If so, can one prove that this structure is transmissible from one individual to another in any way?
These are the questions that a virologist would have to answer and test with tangible laboratory procedures and document them in detail! Discussions and opinions of so-called “experts” play no role at all without scientific laboratory investigations.

Since this evidence for the existence of supposed pathogenic viruses has not been produced since the emergence of virology, and since one can explain diseases without the presence of supposed pathogens and since one can clearly show that all previous work on the subject of viruses only ever produced theoretical models and superficial evidence that can be interpreted one way or the other…. it can therefore be clearly demonstrated that the German Infection Protection Act (and likely most other international pandemic laws) has been violated from the very beginning and that all those responsible are permanently in breach of the very law to which they constantly refer and which they keep amending to adapt it to the new narrative.

_ _ _

It is definitely time to ask the virus proof question! And this is THE crucial question. Not only to end the Corona crisis once and for all, but above all to ensure that something like this can never happen again.
However, serious, critical discourse in the scientific community seems to be extremely challenging at present. And since the virus evidence issue is not about some trivial matter but about a tangible paradigm shift, it may well be a long time before a genuine discourse amongst experts will be possible. The paradigm shift is coming because the public is engaged, but some people who are attached to the old system will probably not be ready for it.

Your Immanuel Project team

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Get in Touch!

Purpose of your Contact
Where can i reach you?
What would you like to discuss?