All About That Measles Trial

... a trial that was going on from 2014-2017 which should have brought down the whole medical system if it wasn't hushed up and ridiculed by the establishment it threatens still. IMPORTANT INFO INSIDE!

I tried to post this article yesterday but my blurt had run out and funds were lost in the ether. I received a generous donation to help me out so I'd like to dedicate this to @practicalthought without whom I would not be posting and to my dear friend @frot, always there for me.

I was asked to help with the translation of another Stefan Lanka article which I think you will all find very interesting. After I posted my last article ‘Virology is Dead’ on Bastyon I got the usual obtuse comment of it being ONLY about money.

yeh ok, ‘been there’ but obviously not done that

This is the ridiculous excuse Barden was giving out and all the ‘skeptics’ bragged about. I always laugh at their use of the word ‘skeptic’ as they are about as sceptical as a two year old child and this comment is just as deep. What he says tho is not lying, originally it was about the prize money but that was exactly how to get this fraud really looked at, scrutinized, by the law. It might not have gone exactly as to plan but the desired effect was finally arrived at. Anyone who can’t see this trial was not JUST about money is naive or plain stupid. This was a moment in medical history. There is a lot in here we can use to fight SARS/Cov2 and not only that, I feel this whole thing may have been rushed at us BECAUSE of this trial maybe before everyone knew what it actually entailed and while everyone was still claiming sour grapes and it being ‘only about the money’. As Lanka said it has written history and written a new law. Now we have to use that.

So here it is, my translation of Lanka’s article in Wissenschaft plus entitled……….
Go Virus Go

The Bundesgerichtshof lets the belief in viruses perish
In the five-year “measles virus trial”, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe confirmed the sensational judgment of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court of February 16, 2016 on December 1, 2016.

As of December 1, 2016, the highest court ruling in Germany stipulates that all claims regarding the infection called measles, measles vaccinations and the measles virus have no scientific basis.

The reasons for the judgment, confirmed by the highest court, include clear statements of fact that refute not only all claims regarding the infection of measles, measles vaccinations and the measles virus, but also all so-called “disease-causing viruses” and vaccinations. Now the world waits for the first court case in which this supreme court ruling can be used, in which a compulsory vaccination, an exclusion from school, an encroachment on parental rights or the right to free choice of profession, the recognition of vaccine damage or the untenability of the state vaccination recommendations is challenged.

This can and should lead (first in Germany and then globally) to an admission of undesirable developments in medicine and to the beginning of a truly scientific, public health education system. The foundations for this have been laid.

The Federal Court of Justice lets people’s belief in viruses go under
Author: Dr. Stefan Lanka

On November 24th, 2011 I offered a prize of €100,000 for a scientific publication in which the alleged “measles virus” is proven to exist. This competition sparked the “bet there is no measles virus trial”. The media prejudice was huge. The court of judgement, the regional court (LG) Ravensburg, came under pressure and the presiding judge Matthias Schneider panicked.

By overstretching law and statute and ignoring all the facts presented in writing, Judge Schneider came in on March 12, 2015, in the first part of the oral hearing, before the expert’s approval and before the further steps of civil proceedings, prescribed a so-called ’chair judgment’. Chair judgments are judgments given without the otherwise specified necessary time for reflection by the court and the parties. In civil law, chair judgments may only be made in cases of very simple and unambiguous facts.

By this ruling, the Ravensburg Regional Court prevented me from being able to refute the statements of the court-appointed expert after their legally regulated submission of evidence at the oral hearing by means of the prepared documentation, which the court had been informed of by my lawyers. The rebuttal came therefore later at a heavy cost using the appeal procedure before the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. If I hadn’t raised and deposited a huge sum of money (over €150,000) necessary for an appeal within a very short time, it would not have come to the appeal proceedings and to the Court of Justice. It is difficult to get justice in Germany without lots of money.

With the ambush-style “chair judgment” being given the LG Ravensburg prevented any possibility of: “The parties negotiating contentiously over the evidence” as it is wrongly written in the minutes of the hearing, without proper hearing of evidence having been carried out and concluded and without the plaintiff’s subsidiary action having been negotiated. The plaintiff claimed I should pay him € 492.54 plus interest, without the alleged charge being judicially established or heard. With the rushed, inadmissible chair judgment (the assessor and clerk of the court asked decisive questions that refuted the expert during the expert testimony) Judge Schneider prevented me from submitting my prepared refutations to the expert’s testimony.

As a precaution, at the beginning of the hearing ,the presiding judge Matthias Schneider forbade me to ask the expert questions myself. The judge knew that I had scientifically published expertise in the field of virology to be presented and that the judicial reviewer who was not a specialist in the field had no knowledge of any scientifically published expertise in the field of virology. The judge sentenced me to pay the prize money of €100,000 plus a high rate of interest, all expenses and high appraisal costs. The judge also ruled that the plaintiff could claim these sums even if I appeal. The plaintiff did this immediately and with maximum possible effort. He even applied for an arrest warrant for me and publicly, untruthfully claimed that it had become effective. The plaintiff himself did not provide the security required by law to demand a provisionally enforceable judgment. This “gross misjudgment” by the Ravensburg Regional Court was overturned on February 16, 2016 due to my successful appeal at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. To date (February 28, 2017: as of going to press), the plaintiff has not released the €121,000 I paid and has not paid the legal, court or expert fees, even though the judgment of the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart of February 16, 2016 became final with the decision of BGH on December 1st, 2016.
Difficult task of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court

The higher regional court (OLG) Stuttgart, which granted my appeal “in full”, had a difficult task. How could the OLG on acquitting me protect the reputation of the judiciary, that of the colleagues in Ravensburg, that of the court-appointed expert, Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbiel-ski, and especially that of Prof. Annette Mankertz from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)? With their judgment, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart tried to protect all parties involved – except for the plaintiff, Dr. Bardens MD, who suffered the intense displeasure of the court.

The court tried to do a balancing act and wrote world history. It elegantly and legally, effectively exposed the misconception about the “measles virus”, the transferability of “measles” and any possibility of effectiveness of so-called “measles vaccinations.” Not between the lines, but there, in words of the judgment, are written the facts that all claims about all disease-causing viruses are refuted.

The OLG Stuttgart had several problems with the presented facts when formulating the judgment. Some tried to legally neutralize it, some just put it out there without comment, without judging it legally. For example, all written and oral statements by the judicial expert, Prof. Podbielski, on which the entire procedure is based, are obviously proven to be false. [1] In my appeal, I refuted all of the expert’s statements. In addition, the files contained five reports, each of which refuted the statements of Prof. Podbielski. The fourth report confirms that Prof. Podbielski, as a mere bacteriologist, has no practical nor published qualifications in the field of virology. He should never have been used as an expert witness.

Another problem faced by the judges at the OLG, who were optimally prepared for the proceedings and obviously relaxed, was: the scientific counter-evidence to the allegations of the existence of the “measles virus” in the form of the fifth expert opinion. This report clearly refutes all existing claims of existence of a “measles virus.” I refer to the fifth report in the appeal, the counter-evidence report and my statements in this issue No. 2/2017 of Wissenschafftplus.

A big problem, which the OLG Stuttgart tried in vain to solve, will be submitted to the court in the future as well is the fact that the pro-virus expert, Prof. Podbielski, refuted himself in the hearing at the Ravensburg Regional Court. In the crossfire of questions from the Rapporteur Judge, Dr Anna-Maria Brutscher, he admitted that his earlier written and central statements on the “measles virus” were false. This central and judicially recorded refutation of the expert by himself, was suppressed in the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart just as it was in the LG Ravensburg case.
This important and only true factual statement by Prof. Podbielski in the minutes of the hearing of March 12, 2015 was not removed or changed. The OLG Stuttgart had to suppress this fact, in order to protect the expert and the Ravensburg Regional Court from possible negative consequences, although this “refutation of the expert by himself” is repeated explicitly and unambiguously put forward in the “admissible” appeal.

A brilliant move by the court, on the other hand, was the handling of the most concrete refutation of the allegations about the existence of the “measles virus” from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). The RKI, the highest state and scientific authority in the field of infectious disease, refuted all allegations of existence of the “measles virus” through a document introduced into the proceedings. The RKI represented by Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the RKI, with her statement about the “measles virus”, at the same time refuted the previous claims of the government agencies that “measles vaccinations” are well tolerated and that none have side effects (see below).

The expert, Prof. Podbielski, with his remarks on the said document of the RKI not only refuted claims of the existence of a “measles virus”, but at the same time the supposedly “scientific” evidence of all “disease-causing viruses” (see below) . The OLG Stuttgart decided to mention these facts, but not to evaluate or to exploit them. The court hoped no one would read the verdict. As a distraction, after the trial was over, the court accused the media of taking legally irrelevant, bite-sized chunks swallowing them and playing them back undigested.

Events on February 16, 2016 in front of the Olg stuttgart

On February 16, 2016, interesting things happened at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court that the media did not report. At the beginning of the hearing, the presiding judge Karl-Heinz Oleschkewitz criticized the plaintiff for acting extremely irresponsibly by bringing and maintaining the lawsuit. The court ordered the plaintiff, Dr. David Bardens MD from Homburg, to answer claims that he himself had not even read the six publications which were said to contain the evidence of the “measles virus” and which he mentioned before the Ravensburg district court as evidence of the existence of the measles virus. Bardens confessed he had not.

In the written reasons for the judgment, which the OLG Stuttgart published on its website on the Internet[2] the court went one step further. In section 30 of the judgment it states the fact that the plaintiff did not submit the six publications to the Ravensburg Regional Court, which sentenced me. Dr. Barden’s motivation for this: The judging court and any interested layperson should not be able to examine the extreme unscientificness and empty content of the six “evidence” publications, which I complained about. The first court, the Ravensburg Regional Court, actually sentenced me without having the evidence in hand that the proceedings were about. On the basis of their deliberately ignoring the six publications, I was able to condemn the Ravensburg district court. Thus, contrary to the factual findings that I had put forward in writing, the court was able to claim that these six publications were “scientific” whereas any interested layperson could state they are extremely unscientific, without perjuring themselves.

The court left that to their appointed expert, Prof. Podbielski. This team of court experts wrote to each other using their first names in an internal email correspondence, which came to my attention by chance, in a completely unusual way.

At the end of my appeal hearing at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court on February 16, 2016, the presiding judge Oleschkewitz gave the plaintiff Dr. Bardens one more thing by the way: The court ruled 3-0 against him with three judges. This is a novelty in German legal history. A court has never publicly stated whether it ruled 3: 0, 0: 3, 2: 1 or 1: 2. This sentimentality of the judge is not surprising when one has read into the subject and become aware of the dimensions of undesirable medical developments. From a biological point of view, it is not surprising that the presiding judge lost his voice while reading the verdict. He ”dissolved.”

The plaintiff remained unapologetic

Despite clear advice from the presiding judge to let the “unambiguous” case rest, despite the obvious strategy of the OLG to protect those involved, the plaintiff again took tens of thousands of euros in hand and paid an exclusive law firm to see whether he could overturn the judgment of the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

He risked what the presiding judge at the OLG tried with all his might to prevent namely the “sins” of the judges from the Ravensburg district court, the expert, Prof. Podbielski and possibly even those of the judges at the OLG Stuttgart being discussed at the BGH.

Dr. Bardens, the only young doctor in the world with his own entry on Wikipedia, knew about the scientific refutations, the refutations in the four counter-reports, the refutation of the expert himself, the refutation of the “measles virus” claims by the RKI and the refutation of all “measles-Virus “claims through the genetic counter-evidence of the fifth expert opinion which was compelling and obvious to everyone else. The “genes” of the “measles virus” are actually the “genes” of normal, healthy cells (see article on this in this issue).

The law firm gladly accepted his money, listlessly formulated untrue, verbatim empty content, in order to get the lost “bet that the measles virus doesn’t exist trial” started again at the BGH. In his complaint to the BGH the plaintiff Dr. Bardens, claimed that I was a danger to public health, that the OLG Stuttgart had violated its fundamental rights in the hearing on February 16, 2016 and that the case was of fundamental importance for further development of the law.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) retorted very clearly dismissing the plaintiff’s untrue justifications on December 1, 2016.

The BGH justified the rejection with the following words: “The first civil senate of the Federal Court of Justice ruled on December 1, 2016 by the presiding judge, Prof. Dr. Büscher, the judges, Prof. Dr. Schaffert, Dr. Kirchoff, Prof. Dr. Koch and Feddersen: The plaintiff’s complaint against the non-admission of the appeal in the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart – 12th civil senate – of February 16, 2016 is rejected because the case is not of fundamental importance, the complaints based on the violation of fundamental procedural rights do not apply and the further development of the law or the safeguarding of uniform case law do not require a decision of the appellate court. For the rest (Section 543 (2) sentence 1 ZPO). According to Section 544, Paragraph 4, Clause 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no more detailed justification is given.

The plaintiff bears the costs of the complaint procedure (Section 97 (1) ZPO). [3]

The judgment of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court of February 16, 2016 and its statements of December 1, 2016 are legally binding and have become an integral part of German case law, which has been confirmed by the highest court.

The main content of the written judgment of the Olg Stuttgart from February 16, 2016

Under paragraph 122 of the judgment, the OLG came to the conclusion that my appeal was successful because “proof of the existence of the measles virus through ‘a scientific publication’ was not fulfilled by the plaintiff . “The court referred to the court-appointed expert, Prof. Podbielski, who testified in writing before the first court and orally stated that none of the six publications offered by Dr. Bardens contained evidence of the existence of the “measles virus”.

In order to prove the existence of the assumed “measles virus”, the expert reports on page 27 of his report from November 17, 2014:
“However, the meaningfulness of a single one of the 6 articles is not enough, but statements from combinations of the 6 articles are necessary for the demonstration.” [4] For legal, logical and scientific reasons, the OLG Stuttgart decidedly and unanimously, 3: 0, rejected the fact that “the statements from combinations of the 6 articles are necessary for the evidence” to prove the alleged existence of the measles virus.

Prof. Podbielski’s construct of turning six non-proofs into one scientific proof, which the Ravensburg Regional Court followed, was rejected by the appellate court with detailed reasons in paragraphs 82, 85 and 86 of the written judgment. [5] Thus it was judicially determined and is now German case law, which can no longer be disputed, that none of the six publications contain evidence of the existence of the “measles virus”.

Two all-important things

Since December 1st, 2016, the day of the confirmation of the measles virus trial judgment of the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart by the BGH, it became German case law, that the first publication in the measles virus trial, the publication by the Nobel Prize winner, John Franklin Enders and his colleagues from 1954, does not provide any evidence for the alleged existence of the suspected “measles virus”.

What makes this fact so important is, on the one hand-

1. this publication is the sole and exclusive basis for all other approx. 30,000 “scientific” publications on the subject of the “measles virus”, “infection” of measles and “vaccination” against measles. All statements about the “measles virus”, the transferability of measles and the measles vaccinations are based exclusively on this publication. Since it is now case law that this publication does not contain any evidence of alleged existence of the supposed measles virus, it is proven that all 30,000 specialist publications on these topics are baseless. In this central publication, Enders states that cells die in the test tube with or without supposed “infection” by presumed “measles viruses” in the saliva or blood of diseased persons. He concludes in this paper that the death of the cells could be evidence either of the presence and multiplication of the suspected measles virus or of the action of unknown factors or of the action of unknown viruses in the cells themselves.

Enders also admits in this work that his experiments with cells in the test tube could have no relevance to real measles in humans. [6]

At the end of 1954, Enders received the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his speculations. He and his colleagues forgot their own refutations and doubts (the end of all science) and claimed that this precise procedure from 1954 would multiply the measles virus and at the same time form the basis of all future vaccine development. It has remained that way to this day. His protocol from the publication of 1954 is still used today to allegedly multiply the “measles virus” and as use of the dying cells for vaccines.

Clearly influenced by the Nobel Prize, Enders, his colleagues and consequently all virologists to this day, overlook that they inadvertently starve and poison the cells before any actual “infection experiment” even begins. Cell components are isolated from the mixture of dying cells, never a “virus.”
Using an imaginary model of what a virus should look like, the cell components found were assigned to the virus model in a conceptual (not factual) consensus-building process that took years. These “viruses” do not appear anywhere in reality. Typical cell components, such as the cells’ adhesion feet, called villi, were misinterpreted as “viruses” in cross-sectional images.

The measles vaccine, which is said to consist of weakened “living measles viruses”, consists exclusively of starved and poisoned cells. Since vaccinations are supposed to produce reactions against the vaccinated proteins, it is now clear why the measles vaccination in particular causes significantly more vaccination damage in the form of mild to very severe allergic reactions and (in the best possible scientifically proven sense) autism. [7]

Enders did not carry out any control tests by which it is easily determined whether a virus or starvation and poisoning is the cause of cell death. They are not carried out by “science” to this day. We have carried out this control experiment as part of the “measles virus trial”. The results prove that the conditions that Enders established in 1954, starvation and poisoning of cells, lead to the death of the cells without an “infection” having taken place. We will document these control experiments and the results in the next issue of Wissenschaft Plus.

1. On the other hand- what is significant about the OLG/BGH jurisprudence on the “measles virus” is that today all “disease-causing viruses” are “proven” with the method invented by Enders in 1954. This method, which Enders described in mid-1954 as speculation “to be regarded with extreme caution”, became a “scientific fact” when Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize on 10 December 1954 and became the model and standard for all current methods of detecting “pathogenic viruses”.

On February 16, 2016, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court not only wrote world history on the “measles virus”, but also refuted the “scientific nature” of claiming the existence of any “disease-causing viruses” and the effectiveness of the “protective” vaccinations.

From the announcement of the legal validity of the Stuttgart OLG judgment of February 16, 2016 by the Federal Court of Justice on December 1, 2016, all “measles vaccinations” and coercive measures regarding them are illegal. Measles vaccinations per se and all related restrictive measures are forbidden from December 1st, 2016, since they are no longer justifiable but criminally prosecutable infringements on the basic rights to physical integrity and life, education, parental rights and free choice of profession. With regard to all other “disease-causing viruses” and their vaccinations, the legal validity of these facts must be determined by means of a further resolution or judgment.

Refutation of the “measles virus” and refutation of the alleged harmlessness of measles vaccinationby Prof. dr. Annette Mankertz from the ro-Bert Koch Institute (rkI)

The “bet that the measles virus doesn’t exist” competition[8] achieved the desired effect as early as 2012. The competition exposed all the decisive facts that we had worked out since 1995 and documented in our books and the magazine: The RKI, the highest scientific authority appointed by the federal government in the field of infectious theories and vaccination, and the highest federal and state health authorities are making claims about infections and vaccinations without any scientifically published basis.

The enquiries triggered by the competition and the course of the complaints procedure, which was also presented in the competition, provided the desired, predicted and previously repeatedly provided evidence. The responsible top health care professionals are deliberately acting against their better judgment with regard to claims of infection and vaccinations. Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, head of the National Reference Institute at the RKI, admitted this essential fact, which we have exposed and complained about since 1995, as a result of the inquiries relating to the measles virus: The RKI had internal studies on the “measles virus”, but contrary to the clear obligation of the RKI to publish all examinations, they were not published.

The legal department of the RKI, the then head of the RKI, its superior in the Federal Ministry of Health, the Federal Minister of Health and the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag refused to act responsibly, to follow the law and deal with it, despite a complaint and request that the RKI carries out scientific studies and publishes them.

The reason for the refusal of the RKI to carry out and publish studies on the “measles virus” became clear through their own admission on January 24, 2012. This document refutes claims that the “measles virus” exists as well as claims that measles vaccination is safe and effective. The RKI writes in it:
“Like other paramyxoviruses, measles viruses do not show a precise size or a precise diameter: they measure from 120 – 400 nm in diameter and then often also contain ribosomes inside.” [9]

“Ribosomes” are the cell’s own factories with which humans, animals and plants produce proteins.

Since the “measles virus” cannot possibly contain any “ribosomes”, this admission by the RKI refutes all claims of the existence of the measles virus! Even more: The RKI has admitted that it works with normal components of life and cells not “measles viruses”. Even more, the RKI has thus provided proof of why the measles vaccination in particular, above all other standard vaccinations, generates the highest rate of vaccine damage in the form of allergies and autoimmune reactions.

The auxiliary substances contained in all vaccines (so-called adjuvants, in reality potent neurotoxins) are supposed to stimulate immune reactions against the alleged viruses. Indeed, the body develops immune reactions, but instead of the alleged helpful reactions, allergic “auto” immune reactions against itself, because with a measles vaccination typical endogenous proteins are implanted instead of a “foreign” body.

Despite this clear fact, the RKI has remained inactive until today and has not informed the public or the specialist public about this. The RKI has thus violated its legal obligations to protect the health of the population and to protect the people from harm.

The regional court of Ravensburg and the higher regional court of Stuttgart ignored my written and oral statements of fact in the “measles virus trial” in this regard. Both courts have also ignored my written requests to summon Prof. Mankertz from the RKI as a witness, without written or oral response. This is a serious matter, as it became known during the trial by the RKI that measles vaccinations pose an apparent risk to the health of the population and that, as a result of the recommendation to vaccinate against measles alone, it is scientifically and legally unacceptable. The recommendation to vaccinate against measles alone is a scientifically and legally impermissible infringement on people’s basic right to life and physical integrity according to Article 2, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law.

The OLG claims with regard to the “Ribosomes-in-measles-virus-determination of the RKI” under point 117 of the judgment, “that allegedly (emphasis mine) it had not been clarified whether ribosomes had not been found inside the measles viruses at the RKI and this excluded the property as a virus.”

The court obviously hopes that the readers will believe the court that the “ribosome argument” has been cleared up and invalidated by the court. In fact, this factual designation by the RKI was not cleared up and not prosecuted. The proof: Even after February 16, 2016, measles vaccinations are being given “against” dozens of different skin diseases. However, these are only diagnosed as measles if the person affected reacts positively to the “measles virus test”. Depending on how these different “measles virus” testing procedures are set up, few, many or all people with this test are “positive” – regardless of whether they are healthy or ill. [10]

We have achieved a small goal: With the complaint of Dr. Bardens the “measles virus trial” started and as a result these facts became known to a large number of citizens and those in charge. The trial received massive national and global coverage. We are sure that we have achieved another goal: We are grateful to Dr David Bardens for preventing the introduction of compulsory vaccination with the particularly risky measles vaccination, as demanded by politicians, because of this joint success.

The refutation of all virology by the expert professor dr. Andreas Podbielski himself

In section 117 of its judgment of February 16, 2016, the OLG Stuttgart announces the refutation of the entirety of virology by their expert. The reviewer is quoted as saying: “The conceptual understanding of the virus is in fact in a state of flux.” [11]

If something is in flux, it is not scientifically defined and may not be asserted as fact in public. I have requested in writing and in the public hearing on 16.2.2016 that if something is not scientifically defined, it is not legally definable and therefore Dr Bardens’ claim must be dismissed. The OLG ignored this point in order to protect those involved.

What Prof. Podbielski kept secret is the fact that well-known “virologists” are again changing and redefining the whole of virology, just as they did back in 1951 and 1952, . They have recognised that structures that were misinterpreted as “viruses” are themselves alive and our cell nuclei emerge from them. They advocate that these structures be recognised as a fourth classification of life alongside the previously discovered “kingdoms” of life, the primordial bacteria, the bacteria and the true cells, and be designated as such. As a young student I was lucky enough to be the first to isolate such a harmless structure from the sea, to fully characterize it and of course (along with control experiments) to publish it scientifically. [12]

What the OLG Stuttgart also tried to conceal with its statements in section 116 of the judgment of February 16, 2016, is explained below.

In 1997 the world’s greatest scientific fraud so far became public. All data relating to the existence of a “hepatitis B virus” and a vaccination against cancer, involving hundreds of the most prominent AIDS, gene, immune, infectious disease and cancer scientists, were not only falsified, but fictitious. As a result, public prosecutors, parliamentarians and politicians demanded that scientific fraud be made a criminal offense. Offenses are only punishable if they were defined as a criminal offense at the time of the offense.

The German Research Society (DFG), an association that distributes billions in research funds on behalf of the government, called on politicians not to introduce the planned criminal offense of “scientific fraud”. The DFG claimed that science should control itself. In order to convince politicians that it did not need to control science, the DFG appointed an international committee in 1997.
The committee had the task of writing down the rules of scientific work that have always applied and are the same for all scientific disciplines in the form of a binding set of rules, as the constitution of international science, and to make them binding internationally. This was carried out.

In Germany, since 1998, all scientists and institutions that receive state research funding have been obliged to adhere to this ingenious, logical and simple set of rules in their work and in the preparation of reports.

The following is central to every newly introduced method that is supposed to produce scientific knowledge: “Control experiments with complete disclosure of the experimental set-up are a central part of the scientific methodology in order to verify the methods used and to exclude disruptive factors.”

Publications without documented execution of control tests may not be presented as scientific. [14]

The one and only basis of all virology since 1953 is the assumption published by Prof. Enders in 1954 that the death of cells in the reagent could be evidence of the action of viruses or that of unknown factors. Only with the Nobel Prize at the end of 1954 did these self-refuting speculations become a scientific fact: “when cells die it is viruses.” Starvation and poisoning are the cause of death of cells in the test tube and not suspected viruses.

The court-appointed expert, Prof. Podbielski, claims in his “supplementary statement” of March 3, 2015, on page 3, under point 6 on the six publications of the measles virus trial: “The necessary data and control experiments to exclude cell artifacts instead of the measles virus are included in the specialist articles – see my report. [16] This statement is proven false with far-reaching consequences.

On March 12th, 2015 at the hearing before the Ravensburg Regional Court he admitted in the crossfire of questions from the assessor and rapporteur: “I cannot now say whether there is an article that comprehensively presents the same things as the original articles mentioned, without pointing out their methodological weaknesses, for example, with the negative controls that are indeed missing.” [17]

He has thus refuted his own written statement of 3.3.2015. He has thus refuted all his statements that the six publications submitted are scientifically usable in the measles virus trial and that it has been proven that there is a measles virus, etc.

Although I presented and proved the fact of the lack of control experiments and the recorded refutation by himself of the expert witness in the appeal, the appellate court suppressed this fact. The Ravensburg district court had sentenced me when the chair judgment was made and in the written grounds for the judgment by suppressing this recorded factual statement of the absence of all control experiments. Or did Judge Matthias Schneider of the Ravensburg Regional Court (omitting the legally prescribed steps of a trial) pass the chair sentence because the expert witness, Prof. Po-dbielski, refuted himself under the clear questioning by his assessor Dr. Anna-Maria Brutscher?

The OLG Stuttgart wrote in its judgment
Item 116:
“Insofar as the defendant shows that the judgment is based on false prerequisites insofar as the expert has not stated that the publications contain control experiments to exclude cell artifacts (p. 23 of the judgment under b., Para. 2), this cannot be followed. In his supplementary opinion of supplementary statement of 3 March 2015, p. 3 (file, p. 134) under 6. he explains that the necessary data and control experiments to exclude cellular artefacts instead of the measles virus are contained in the technical articles, whereby he refers to his expert opinion. [18]

In its judgment of February 16, 2016, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court also suppressed the refutation of the expert by himself, which was recorded in court on March 12, 2015 False statements made in the appeal by the judicial expert and also the refutation of the judicial expert, Prof. Podbielski, recorded on March 12, 2015, suppressed by himself in order to protect the expert.

How the higher regional court Stuttgart unsuccessfully tried to pull out of the affair

The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court writes, in line 121 of the measles virus ruling on the reports I introduced into the proceedings, that these were not taken into account in the ruling, “because they are not relevant to the decision.” I presented the fact that genetic sequence comparisons have clearly refuted all allegations of existence of the measles virus (see the article on this in this issue of Wissenschaft Plus No. 2/2017).

However, from a legal point of view, vaccination is an “effectively, punishable infringement of the right to life and physical integrity”, which can only be exempted from punishment if the person being vaccinated or the legal guardian has given their legally informed consent. Because the OLG Stuttgart became aware of facts that fundamentally refute the legal validity of vaccinations, the attempt by the OLG to “pull itself out of the affair” described here, cannot be justified.

All citizens are called upon, and public servants in particular are obliged, to act independently and to call in the relevant security and law enforcement authorities if the highest constitutional rights are unjustifiably interfered with without being legally authorised to do so. Judges are not exempt from this. That the presiding judge at the OLG is well informed about all the crucial details and the importance of science and scientificity was sufficiently proven in my questioning during the public hearing on February 16, 2016.

Celebrities copycat, bad losers

Well-known actor Robert De Niro and former US President Kennedy’s nephew Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have also offered $100,000 in prize money for scientific evidence related to vaccination. They will give it to whoever presents them with a scientific publication in which the harmlessness of mercury in vaccines is proven. Both assume that vaccinations are particularly harmful because extremely toxic substances are contained in them. Robert De Niro’s son became autistic at the time of his vaccination. From a biological point of view, this has proven that vaccinations can trigger autism. [20]

The plaintiff, the Homburg MD Dr. Bardens now works in Sweden. As an explanation for having lost the case brought by him at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court and the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe, he presented an explanation to the media which he freely invented. He claims that he lost due to a technicality. Dr. Bardens claims that he lost because instead of submitting one publication he submitted six publications.

Nothing like this can be found in the oral hearing before the OLG Stuttgart and in the written grounds for the judgment. On the contrary. Dr. Bardens lost the trial because the court-appointed expert found that none of the six publications presented contained evidence of the existence of a virus. That was also the only true statement of the expert, Prof. Podbielski. The argument of Prof. Podbielski, “the statements of combinations of the 6 publications are necessary for the evidence [of the measles virus]”, was expressly rejected by the OLG Stuttgart, as documented above.

Final finished article made pretty and professional by John Blaid.
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/goVIRUSgo.pdf
My blog version (with pretty pictures):
https://northerntracey213875959.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/all-about-that-measles-trial/