Background and analysis of the first instance judgement

Author: Dr. Stefan Lanka - July 2, 2015

On March 12, 2015, in the trial, file number 4 O 346 /13, the so-called measles virus trial, in the first instance the verdict was pronounced, which can be viewed on the website of the Regional Court Ravensburg. In the following, the background and motives for the awarding of the prize are explained and the verdict against which I have appealed is analyzed and summarized. The prize competition, in which € 100,000 was awarded for the submission of scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus and the determination of its diameter if seven criteria were met, was published in order to prove that the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which is responsible for infectious diseases in Germany, has no proof of the existence of the alleged disease-causing viruses. 

During my studies of biology (1984-1988) I isolated as a student, in my own laboratory at the University of Konstanz, the first "virus" from the sea, today called "giant virus" or, correctly, "protocell".

This resulted in scientific publications, participation in international conferences and congresses, my diploma and doctoral thesis. And it resulted, in cooperation with my professors and international scientists, in the realization that it has never been possible to scientifically prove so-called pathogenic viruses.

Research showed that instead of viral structures, typical cell components and properties of dying cells in the test tube were misinterpreted as "viruses". I researched the background and history of this erroneous development and presented it in many ways, including in a current article in the magazine WissenschafftPlus No. 3/2015. The belief in disease-causing viruses results from the ancient doctrine of juices, according to which diseases are produced by toxins. Humans healthy again, if the body develops antidotes against the suspected disease poisons or if the development of the antidotes is released by vaccines.

This assumption was supported by the fact that there are poisons such as alcohol, for example, whose increasing and regular consumption makes one "resistant" or "immune" to quantities and concentrations. The amount tolerated by an alcoholic could be fatal for a person who does not consume alcohol. However, as it turned out, the body does not produce antidotes, but enzymes that metabolize alcohol and repair its damage to nucleic acids, proteins and fats. 

Undesirable development of medicine

Disease poisons were accepted for almost all diseases, which is why bloodletting was supposed to dilute the disease poison, especially during fever attacks. Mozart, for example, died of such bloodletting. In 1858, when Rudolf Virchow founded the so-called cellular pathology through plagiarism, in which the essential knowledge was suppressed, and through which medicine is still defined as scientific today, it was claimed that cells are the basis of diseases and produce disease toxins. When bacteria were discovered, it was believed that they would produce the disease toxins in the body. This turned out to be an error, which was not admitted publicly until today, but is easily researchable and comprehensible.

With the discovery of bacteria and the false assumption that bacteria would produce toxins in the body, the ancient theory of juices was transformed into the current form of infection theory. In animal experiments, which were and are carried out to prove the theory of infection, but which are still carried out without any control experiments to this day, it was found that animals also fell ill and died when the same volumes but bacteria-free fluids are injected into the heart, brain, lungs or other organs. From these experiments it was concluded that, in addition to the bacteria that are supposed to form toxins in the body, there must also be undetectable toxins, which were called viruses (lat. disease toxin). This was the birth of modern virology. Later, animal experiments were shifted to the living chicken embryo inside the egg shell and supposedly infected disease products were injected into embryos. The death of parts or the whole embryo is passed off as the result of a viral infection. To date, however, no control experiments have been carried out in the performance of this type of "infection", which could rule out the possibility that injections of large quantities of fluids and the content of the injected material could cause the effects. Vaccines are produced from embryos killed in this way.

The resulting injury and death consequences have been and are equated with the detection, isolation and characterization of the respective suspected viruses. For this purpose, maps were drawn and the sites and organs of the chicken embryo were marked into which, depending on the suspected virus type, the supposedly infected extracts are injected. If these body areas and organs of the embryo change or die as a result of the injection, this is interpreted as a "similar symptom" of "infection" in humans and is equated with the "isolation", "detection", "multiplication" and "characterisation" of the suspected virus. The word "isolation" is used misleadingly, because in contrast to the actually existing approx. 2,700 types of virus, which were isolated factually and literally and biochemically characterized by means of simple standard techniques, this has never been achieved by the alleged pathogenic viruses. In the case of all so-called disease-causing viruses, individual proteins and nucleic acids from cells have been and are being combined in a laborious consensus-finding process over decades to form a fictitious model that has no equivalent in reality.

Existing "viruses", on the other hand, are photographed quickly and easily, by default at and in their place of origin and in liquids. They are then isolated from all other components by standard techniques and concentrated and photographed again to document the identity of the isolated and its purity in the first step. This serves the purpose of determining their exact composition in a few steps by means of easy-to-use standard biochemical techniques. Only when these steps have been verifiably documented, i.e. published, may one speak of a "virus".

The discovery of the precursors of cells

In 1915 and 1917, smaller structures than spores were observed in bacteria, which are formed when bacteria are deprived of their livelihood and have no time to form spores. These frequently occurring structures are well studied and each consists of a nucleic acid surrounded by a shell of proteins. Erroneously they have been called the phages (bacteria eaters) and viruses of the bacteria. For all naturally occurring bacteria, cells and living beings, these phages have only positive properties. They provide useful information, bioavailable energy and the building blocks of life.

These "viruses" of the bacteria, which have meanwhile been examined in the best possible way and as standard, were the model for the suspected disease toxin of humans and animals, Latin "virus. The researchers believed that "disease-causing viruses" like the phages consist of a nucleic acid in a protein envelope. Instead of detecting the suspected disease-causing viruses like the phages of bacteria using standard techniques, the experimental death of chicken embryos was and is equated with the presence, isolation, detection, reproduction and characterization of these suspected viruses.

The experiments with chicken embryos were transferred to test tubes in which cells are killed by the administration of toxic substances consisting of a mixture of dead cells and chemicals. Similarly, without the performance of any control experiments that could rule out the possibility that the death was caused by the toxic substances and the deprivation of nutrients during "preparation of the cells for infection", the experimentally induced death of the cells is equated with isolation, detection, replication and characterization of these suspected viruses.

When, after the discovery of the electron microscope in 1934 and its widespread introduction after 1945, neither the numerously claimed cancer viruses nor any other disease-causing virus could be photographed and isolated, the infection theory was abandoned in the USA for seven years. The idea of cancer viruses became the idea of cancer genes and from there the idea of genes as the construction and function plan of life. This gene concept also later turned out to be wrong. See among others "Erbgut in Auflösung (Genetics: Genome in Dissolution)", DIE ZEIT, 17.6.2008 (1) and the articles on this subject in the magazine WissenschafftPlus of the last years.

Due to the successful, first-time isolation of a "giant virus" from a multicellular organism still during my studies and its further investigation, it became clear that the "viruses" seen in bacteria, simple fungi and unicellular organisms are not pathogens, but the precursors of bacteria and cells. They cannot be seen in humans, animals and plants, because they are used in their cells as cell organelles, such as the cell nucleus, and have changed in shape, size and composition. These findings were published in German in the science section of the NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung (New Zürcher Newspaper)) on July 24, 2013 and 2012 in the magazine "Spektrum der Wissenschaft (Spectrum of science)".

In the meantime it has been researched that more than half of the chromosomes of our cell nuclei are made up of what has been and still is misinterpreted as the genetic material of disease-causing viruses, including HIV and the measles virus. The aim of the measles virus competition is to make this mistaken development public and to remedy it, in order to give the necessary space for the real explanation of diseases and their rational treatment. 

Background of the procedure

The acknowledgement of this knowledge obliges everyone involved to become active, since people are unnecessarily misdiagnosed and mistreated by parts of the medicine, suffer, fear and even die due to this misguided development. The numerous attempts by those involved to correct the misguided development within science failed, which is why some, including myself, sought the way to the public.

This resulted in the "klein-klein-movement" in German-speaking Europe since 1995, in which citizens became active through "klein-klein-actions" such as concrete questions about scientific evidence to the responsible health authorities. In each case, the questions were asked very precisely and insistence was placed on the submission of original scientific papers proving the existence of the disease-causing viruses in demand in each case. After initial denials, prominent health authorities and their representatives admitted that their public claims about "disease-causing viruses" and "infectious diseases" were not based on scientific evidence, but on an international consensus that they did exist.

This evidence has been published and disseminated in a variety of forms. To promote these activities, the association "Wissenschaft, Medizin und Menschenrechte e.V." (Science, Medicine and Human Rights) was founded in 1997, which was supported and advised by eminent scientists and physicians, including Nobel Prize winners. In 2003, the association and its activities gave rise to the klein-klein-verlag, a small publishing house, in order to publish the results e.g. in the form of a regularly appearing journal and books.

The Infection Protection Act (IfSG), which came into force in Germany on January 1, 2001, considerably facilitated and concretized this work, since it stipulates in §4 IfSG that the responsible higher authority for infectious diseases, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, must conduct independent research on viruses that cause illness. Up to this point in time, this authority had explicitly referred to the fact that the allegations of the existence of pathogenic viruses were based on an international consensus of the majority of the scientists involved, which eludes concrete verification.

Since 1 January 2001, many citizens have been asking the RKI for scientific proof of concrete disease-causing viruses, always referring to §§ 1 and 4 of the IfSG. This may have remained hidden from the plaintiff, the court, the expert and no reader of the publications of the klein-klein-verlag, its website and the measles virus competition of the klein-klein-verlag.

This context and the aim of the competition to disclose that the RKI makes claims about the existence of disease-causing viruses without being able to present any scientific evidence for this is denied by the court. In the grounds of the judgment, the court presents the contest as a superficial and primitive criticism of the pharmaceutical industry in order to ignore the seven criteria of the contest and replace them with an arbitrary interpretation of what is written.

The fulfilment of the seven criteria of the competition was replaced by a conglomerate of extremely unscientific statements and freely invented false statements of the expert. This conglomerate, which was mainly presented orally, was presented by the court as scientific proof of the existence of the measles virus, which was demanded in the competition.

The Measles Virus Competition

Images of the alleged measles virus appeared on the RKI's website and information brochures, which were passed off as works of the RKI without any publication being indicated with the images or the name of a staff member who took these photos with diameter specifications. Inquiries to the RKI, who created these pictures and within which publications they were published, remained unanswered. No corresponding publications appeared in the RKI's list of quotations, not even in comprehensive literature research.

Complaints that the RKI does not cite original scientific papers in which the existence of the alleged measles virus is proven were answered evasively. Complaints that the RKI issues anonymous photographs as scientific proof of the existence of the measles virus and that these are not published within scientific publications were also answered only evasively.

A public prosecutor who was involved advised us to formulate a prize competition to demand an original scientific paper so that this matter could be made public and cleared up. A former Federal Minister of Justice called me with the request to provide her with arguments against the ever more loudly demanded compulsory measles vaccination. So now the RKI and the supervising Federal Ministry of Health had to be successfully persuaded to admit that they had not and could not present any scientific evidence for the existence of the alleged measles virus. This first goal of the competition has been demonstrably achieved through admissions.

This purpose and the goal of making the untenability of the infection theories public was served by the three-page competition, which I sent on November 24, 2011 as an e-mail newsletter to the subscribers of the klein-klein-verlag. Under the pressure of the questions and complaints triggered by the competition, the competition caused the RKI to admit that the statements and images of the RKI on the measles virus and its diameter determination are based on unpublished, internal studies.

The RKI also stated that the diameter determination revealed that the measles virus contains ribosomes. This statement of the RKI refutes the existence claims of a measles virus and would be a very significant discovery, according to the expert's statement, if this finding could be accepted by the expert public. In the reasoning of the judgement the court suppresses this refutation of the existence assertion of the measles virus by the RKI. Viruses are defined by the absence of ribosomes and other cell components.

The reasoning of the court in the grounds of the judgment

The district court of Ravensburg sentenced me in the hearing on March 12, 2015 to pay the prize money together with expenses.

In order to condemn me, the court: 

I. through an arbitrary, incomprehensible interpretation, overruled all 7 conditions of the contest. 

The contest requires that with

1. one

2. scientific

3. original work

4. of the RKI,

5. in which the diameter of the virus is determined

6. and in which no models for determining the

diameter may be used,

7. the existence of the alleged measles virus is proven.

For this reason, the court accepts the recorded repeal of the scientific nature and the binding and obligatory rules of scientific work by the expert witness, who stated that the strict rules of science in biology would not apply.

On this extra-scientific basis, the expert witness interpreted the content of the six publications submitted by the plaintiff and their collections of quotations, all of which are demonstrably extremely unscientific publications, as scientific.

Because none of the submitted publications contains the required evidence, the expert witness and the court, against their better judgment, claim that a combination of the statements of the six publications would provide the required evidence. In this regard, the expert witness and the court claim that the individual statements are supported by "sufficiently adequate and scientifically correct experiments", which is an easily proven false statement.

II. the court accepts and approves that the expert

a. takes statements and arguments in an arbitrary manner from the six publications and the publications cited therein;

b. interprets and interprets these taken statements contrary to the statements and intentions of the authors;

c. invents additional statements that were not made in the publications;

d. tries to justify his actions by several easily provable false statements;

e. constructs a conglomerate of arguments, inadmissible interpretations and freely invented statements from them;

f. makes the conglomerate formation in an incomprehensible and verifiable way;

g. that the presiding judge, Matthias Schneider, in spite of the inquiries and insistence of the rapporteur, Judge Dr. Brutscher, after concrete, quotable evidence, failed to ask the expert witness to back up his statements with concrete evidence in the form of quotations and thus justify his conglomerate formation;

h. presents this type of conglomerate justified by false statements as a fact, with which the scientific proof for the existence of the measles virus is supposed to be provided.

i. claims diameters, although the diameters were only determined by models and were not made on isolated and detected viruses.

III. in order to legitimize this action, the court ignores all the refutations of the expert's statements and the disclosure of his false statements made in the party's presentation of the opinion of 2 February 2015.

The court prevented the rebuttal of the arguments and false statements newly presented in the oral hearing on March 12, 2015, by not allowing me to ask the expert witness any questions.

In conclusion, it should be noted that, due to the revocation of the scientific rules by the expert witness, which were replaced by the assertion that scientific facts arise through consensus building, scientificity is not defined in these proceedings.

If scientificity is not defined, but is based on consensus-building by a majority of the participants, it is not enforceable. For this reason, too, the judgment must be rejected. I refer here to the judgements of the Federal Law Gazette (BGB), in which science and scientificity are exactly defined.

The six publications presented The six publications are numbered according to their date of publication, between the years 1954 and 2007. All six publications and all other works cited therein violate the binding rules of scientific work in an obvious, easily comprehensible and extreme way.

1. To work "lege artis The investigations are to be carried out in accordance with the latest state of research, which requires knowledge and exploitation of current literature, the application of appropriate methods and the latest findings.

2. Honesty. It is the task of the scientist to consistently control and question results and to question the results and hypotheses, whereby findings of others must also be presented. Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental design are a central part of the scientific methodology in order to verify applied methods and to exclude disturbing factors.

3. Quality assurance as an important feature of scientific honesty. When results are published, methods, work steps and results shall be described precisely, with a clear distinction between the reproduction of findings and interpretation. Findings that reject one's own hypotheses and communicate findings and ideas of other scientists, as well as relevant publications of other authors and competitors must be cited appropriately.

All six submitted publications violate the criterion to work "lege artis", since in none of these publications the experiments were carried out at the respective state of the art. Centrally, all these publications apply the paradigms, methods and techniques of the 19th century, but the appropriate methods and latest findings of the 20th and 21st centuries are not applied but ignored.

The control experiments centrally required and necessary in the scientific rules are not carried out in any of the publications presented and the publications cited therein. The respective extremely and obviously contradictory results are not consistently challenged, nor are the findings of others presented that question the results and hypotheses. The criteria of quality assurance are not fulfilled in any of the publications presented.

For this reason, the six publications presented, as well as the other publications cited therein, may be dismissed as scientific in content and form, since they are extremely unscientific and cannot be used, except as counterevidence.

Since none of the publications contains any control experiments, only one conclusion can be drawn from the publications: They prove the opposite of a virus, namely the detection and characterization of components and properties of dying cells in the test tube. The 5th and 6th publication, on which the expert and the court explicitly and mainly rely in their justifications, are demonstrably not scientific publications, as they have not been published in independently peer-reviewed scientific journals. The 5th publication is a book chapter from a book about the alleged measles virus that has not been independently peer-reviewed. The 6th publication is an internal journal of a Japanese college, which has also not been independently peer-reviewed.

This coincides with the argumentation of the expert witness and the court, who explicitly claim and have put on record that these publications in particular are independently peer-reviewed and therefore scientific publications. The statement of the expert witness, which was recorded on page 10 of the minutes of the hearing of March 12, 2015, that in scientific reviews the authors' own work and results may under no circumstances be presented, discussed or cited, is also refuted by the 5th publication, a non-scientific review: The authors demonstrably discuss and quote themselves in this work and often.

On the basis of the false statement that the presented publications are scientific, the reviewer claims that even the obviously extremely unscientific statements and conclusions made in them are scientific and usable.

From individual statements from these publications and demonstrably freely invented statements and their arbitrary and inadmissible interpretations, the expert constructs a conglomerate of assertions with the help of demonstrable false statements, which is to prove the existence of the alleged measles virus. This procedure is extremely unscientific, a novelty in the history of science and in law, and cannot be justified by anything.

The 1st publication:

Enders & Peebles, 1954 Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun; 86 (2): 277-286. 

The authors establish the technique by which to date the claimed measles viruses are simultaneously claimed to be replicated, isolated, detected and characterized. For the "infection", the cells used for this purpose are administered chemicals in the test tube, including cell-killing so-called antibiotics, and the supply of nutrients is drastically reduced. 

Cotton swabs with swabs from people with symptoms that at the time and in the USA were defined as measles are put in milk. In this way, the suspected measles virus is supposed to pass from the absorbent cotton into the milk. This milk, mixed with chemicals and cell-killing so-called antibiotics, is given to the cells prepared for the infection, whereupon they die faster and more distinctly than they would without this addition. 

This dying of the cells is called a typical and specific cytophatic (cell killing) effect, although exactly the same effect happens regularly with the same cells, even if they are treated "normally" and not prepared for an "infection". Despite this refutation of the "specific cytophatic effect of the measles virus" by these observations, this effect is reported as isolation, detection, multiplication and characterization of the measles virus. Since rapidly dying cells often fuse together to form giant cells (syncytium), the "specific effect" of the measles virus is also called syncytium formation.

Control experiments without the use of cotton swabs or cotton swabs from healthy people or animals suffering from other symptoms are not carried out. This is extremely unscientific. It is obvious that the faster death of cells in the test tube is caused by the way in which the cells are prepared for the "infection" and by the effects known as infection.

The authors give this to consider, which is negated however despite emphasis in the statement by the expert and court. They ascribe to this method, which is the central starting point of all other publications presented, the central role in proving the existence of the measles virus. They claim, against their better knowledge, that these and other experiments in the other publications are "sufficiently adequate and scientifically correct experiments".

Fluids from cells killed in this way are returned to "healthy" cells prepared (activated) for infection, repeating the effect of accelerated cell death. This is what the founders of this method call a "passage" of the virus. In a publication by these authors in 1957, the slightly different behavior of these cells is referred to as a characterization of the measles virus, which is used to interpret different "virus strains" and their changes, for example, as attenuation. These cells with the "attenuated" virus are still used today as measles vaccines.

To date, no structures have been seen, photographed, isolated from, photographed and characterized in the fluids of these dead cells or in a human or his body fluids that could be passed off as a virus. In contrast, cross-sectional images of typical structures of cells, such as villi, round amoeba-like projections with which the cells move, are output as cross sections through viruses.

The 2nd publication by Bech & von Magnus, 1958 

Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42 (1): 75-8

The experiments of these authors, without any control experiments, build on the technique of the authors of the 1st Publ. In the "infection experiments" with cells in the test tube, which last up to 30 days, they do not renew the nutrient solutions every 4-5 days, but not at all. They find that especially with the cell type that is still regularly used today for "isolation", "detection", "multiplication" and "characterization" of the measles virus, the "specific effect" of the measles virus occurs particularly frequently, even if the cells are treated normally and not "infected". 

The authors explicitly state that this method of the authors of the 1st Publ. is not suitable for "isolating" the measles virus. The expert witness and the court are concealing and suppressing this refutation, although it is explicitly mentioned and presented in the party presentation of the statement.

In an animal experiment with two monkeys, without control experiments, the animals are taught symptoms in an abstruse way, which is presented as "similar" to a measles disease in one animal. From the "similar" of the authors, the expert in the expert report turns into "the same symptoms as with measles.

To produce the measles symptoms in animal experiments, the fixed and shaved monkeys are injected with supposedly infected fluids through tubes into the lungs. These fluids consist of dead test tube cells, mixed with cytotoxic chemicals, so-called antibiotics, among other things, which kill cells. The method of introduction and the composition of the injected fluids cause a variety of inflammatory and allergic reactions, which are misinterpreted as "measles infection".

The 3rd publication by Nakai & Imagawa, 1969

Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35-50.

The authors show electron microscopic photos of cross sections through cells, which clearly show cross sections of protuberances of the cell called villi. In intact cells, these protuberances can only be seen on one side, since the cell attaches itself to the ground through these protuberances and moves on them, similar to an amoeba. In giant cells, which die because they have merged and therefore cell division no longer works, these villi are found in several places and often in a disordered manner.

Because the cells studied originated from allegedly "infected" cells, the authors ad hoc claim that the cross sections through the villi are cross sections of measles viruses. In an extremely unscientific way, they suppress the sectional planes in front of and behind the image shown. Only the documentation of these other sectional planes could have shown that the cross sections shown were cell protuberances or independent particles. On the basis of such incompletely examined cell-own structures, the authors determine the diameter of the suspected measles viruses.

Even if it had been shown that the cross sections contained identifiable independent particles, this would only prove the presence of typical cell transport particles, which are called exosomes. In order to prove that independent particles, which were never detected here or in other measles studies, are viruses, they would have had to be isolated, photographed and biochemically characterized. This has not been done for the measles virus or any other disease-causing virus to date and has not been demonstrated in any study. 

In order to claim that the cells used would produce measles virus, the authors pelletize membrane components, nucleic acids and proteins of dead cells by centrifugation. The images of the pellets clearly show their composition from cell fragments. An incomplete uptake of a pellet is improperly referred to as a "measles particle", although its composition has not been biochemically determined in this or any other study. Control experiments in which cell fragments from dead but not "infected" cells are compressed into pellets and compared with pellets from "infected" cells have not been performed. Therefore, these experiments do not allow any other statement, except that the work was done with cell own components.

The authors do not perform or document any control experiments at all, but refer to normally treated cells not prepared for "infection" as controls. However, these untreated cells are not observed and included in the experiments in the same way either, but only in such literally "similar" and furthermore in an undescribed and undocumented way, but not at all, as the reading of the publication shows.

The authors use the technique developed in the 1st publication to "multiply" and "isolate" "measles viruses" and ignore the authors' warnings that the use of this technique is not proof of a measles virus and ignore the refutation of this technique by the authors of the 2nd publication. All authors of all publications on the measles virus ignore this, which is one argument of several for their extreme unscientificity.

The 4th publication: Lund et al, 1984

Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measels virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3 (2): 187-97.

In their publication in 1984, the authors state that there are no reliable but extremely contradictory statements on the length and composition of the so-called genetic material, the genome of the alleged measles virus. The authors make this observation at a time when the detection of the composition and length of nucleic acids from viruses had long been the simplest standard performed by first-year students.

Since it has not yet been possible, according to the authors, to determine the length and composition of the nucleic acid of the measles virus, the authors intend to artificially propagate the genetic material of the claimed virus in order to be able to study it in artificially propagated form. This also laid the foundation for the measles virus, that instead of a viral structure, normal components, here the nucleic acids of the cells used, are misinterpreted as components of the measles virus.

According to the authors, the first prerequisite is to determine the length of the measles virus genome. However, instead of isolating the nucleic acid from measles viruses using standard techniques to extract it and then determine its length and composition using standard techniques, they choose a combination of two methods that are definitely unsuitable for this purpose. Their source for molecules they misinterpret as being part of the suspected measles virus is the technique developed in the 1st publication, whose limitations by the authors they ignore, and the refutation of this technique by the authors of the 2nd publication.

They use nucleic acids from cell fragments of supposedly infected cells and not from isolated viruses. Nucleic acids from dead cells of a certain length are issued without justification as viral nucleic acid of the measles virus. This is done even though everyone involved is aware that cell fragments contain an extremely large number of different nucleic acids of all sizes. These nucleic acids, which are selected according to size, are not determined with the standard methods suitable for this purpose, but with the unsuitable method of determining the length of nucleic acids under the electron microscope.

The authors state the length determined in this way as the length of the genetic material of the measles virus. This length differs many times over from the length and composition of the genetic material of the measles virus, which was issued years later as the binding "scientifically determined" length and composition of the genetic material of the measles virus in a laborious consensus-building process involving many doctors. Control experiments are not mentioned at all in this publication.

The 5th publication: Horikami & Moyer, 1995

Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gene Virol. 1984 Sep; 65 (Pt 9): 1535-42.

This publication summarizes and interprets the results of 98 publications, reviews and unpublished observations, in which the authors include and cite their own results. The papers cited therein essentially comprise papers such as publications 1 to 4 and the work of further consensus building on the length and composition of the genome of the claimed measles virus.

Illustrations of viruses are not included, neither is a diameter indication of a measles virus, neither is it proof of the existence of a measles virus, and certainly not of the existence of a nucleic acid from a virus that could be issued as the genetic material or genome of the measles virus.

The reviewer claims that this review paper contains evidence for the existence of a measles virus genome. This is a false statement that is untrue and easy to prove, since such evidence is not contained in the review, not even in the citations of the studies cited therein. What is contained in the publications summarized in this review are statements that theoretically unite different nucleic acids from different sources into a common nucleic acid that is presented as the genome of the measles virus.

Control experiments that could exclude the possibility that only nucleic acids from the cell itself were misinterpreted as the measles genome are not mentioned in this publication and the publications cited therein.

Figure description

The diameter of a "virus" is determined in the electron microscope in a supervisory procedure. This was not done in the 6th publication to which the reviewer refers. It is claimed that the viruses shown are cross-sectional images (A). In this case, in order to be scientific (comprehensible, verifiable), the authors should have shown the images before and after the cross-sectional plane (3). 

As can be seen in B. and C., the authors have only shown the cross-sectional plane 3 through a cell. They suppress the layers before and after, which is extremely unscientific. Otherwise it would have been clear that they had made a cross-section through a cell with its typical protuberances (e.g. Villi) and had not discovered a measles virus.

The 6th publication: Daikoku et al, 2007

Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53 (2): 107–14.

The authors note that the structures shown in cells, which are represented by cross-sectional images through cells, could well be typical cellular structures such as Villi (see above) and measles virologists interpret these structures as measles viruses. They conclude this because the particles in the cross-sectional images, which are larger and smaller than the previously assumed size of the measles viruses, each have a completely different structure than the structures that were previously identified as measles viruses.

To prove that the structures seen inside cells are nevertheless measles viruses, they are conducting two experiments. Their source for cell fragments, which they pellet and press to form aggregates in order to misinterpret them as measles viruses, is the technique developed in the 1st publication, whose limitations by the authors they ignore, and the refutation of this technique by the authors of the 2nd publication. Control experiments are not mentioned at all in this publication.

The authors produce pellets by centrifugation from cell fragments, which they dismiss as measles virus without any reason. The photos of these pellets show that they are agglomerates of cell fragments. The biochemical characterization of the composition of these pellets, which would have had to prove whether these agglomerates are composed of cell fragments or of a viral nucleic acid and the viral proteins, was not carried out, which is extremely unscientific and cannot be justified. Nevertheless, the authors claim, without providing any proof, that the pellets are measles viruses.

Neither was the diameter determination of these pellets, which are issued as single, isolated measles viruses, performed, although the recording technique was specifically suited for this purpose.

In a second experiment, cell fragments are pressed through pores of different sizes and the resulting pressed pellets of different sizes, in an "infection experiment", cause accelerated cell death. These compacts were not photographed, nor was their biochemical composition determined in an inexplicable and inexcusable way.

Because these non-examined pellets of the order of 50 to 1000 nm in the "infection experiment" kill cells in the test tube, it is claimed that the non-examined structures not isolated from the cells are also measles viruses of the order of 50 to 1000 nm. This conclusion is made without a basis of proof, is wrong and cannot be justified by anything. The expert's statement that the combination of two different techniques in this publication proves the existence of the measles virus is therefore a false statement. It is also a false statement that the experiments performed in this publication are "sufficiently adequate and scientifically correct experiments".

Translated, adapted & reblogged Version - Original here

Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal

References:

(1) Genetics: Genome in Dissolution