Measles virus process: The omens are good

Part 2 of "The notice of The notice of appeal in the measles virus trial"

Author: Lawyer of Dr. Stefan Lanka - February 24, 2016

Foreword by Dr. Stefan Lanka

Foreword

The appeal hearing at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court has now been postponed to February 16, 2016. In the proceedings so far, the violations of the fundamental right to a fair hearing, the formal errors, the ignoring of the substantive arguments, the scientific groundlessness and refutation of the arguments of the court and the expert are so clear and obvious that we are sure that the judgment will be overturned by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) at the latest.

For example, my statement of February 2, 2015, and its contents were suppressed by the court and the expert witness with the false assertion that the expert witness had referred to it and refuted the arguments in his letter of March 3, 2015. Since the documents of the court proceedings are published on our website (www.wissenschafftplus.de), everyone can quickly see that the expert did not respond to any of the arguments of my statement. 

On the basis of the questions of my lawyers in their letter of February 3, 2015, it can be seen that the expert in his letter of March 3, 2015, obviously gave easily recognizable wrong answers. Unbelievable but true: The question central to the procedure, whether control experiments exclude the possibility that components and properties of very fragile and dying cells in the test tube were misinterpreted as components and properties of a measles virus, is answered by the expert in his letter of 3 March 2015 with yes.

In the minutes of the hearing, however, on p. 7, above, the expert witness truthfully stated in response to the question of Judge Dr. Brutscher, who is the rapporteur of the trial, that the six publications of the measles trial that were submitted "indeed" did not contain any negative controls. The court overlooked or suppressed this statement of the expert witness for the record in the grounds of the judgment. However, this proves that in the six publications presented, no measles virus was detected in the test tube, but only cell-specific components and properties of very fragile and dying cells. 

This central statement that no control experiments were carried out was confirmed by Prof. Dr. Dr. Walach of the European University Viadrina Frankfurt-Oder in an independent statement published on November 1, 2015 (http://intrag.info/aktuell/). With this statement, which also explains from a scientific-theoretical point of view how false assumptions occur and why they are maintained, we have been confirmed and we express our thanks to Frankfurt/Oder for their sincerity and scientificity.

Please consider whether you know doctors and scientists who confirm this statement. If so, please send us the confirmations. This will strengthen our position in court, in public and will also make your doctor think about it.

If you are willing to support our project, with which we are testing many people both positively and negatively for the measles virus simultaneously with the "official measles tests", please contact us. By conducting and publishing these tests, we will practically prove that the current measles policy is based on false assumptions and that the measles vaccinations cannot be scientifically justified.

1.2.5 Horikami/Moyer

The book, which includes a chapter by the authors Horikami/ Moyer, which the plaintiff, the expert and the court call a scientific publication, deals with current topics of microbiology and immunology.

For several reasons, it certainly cannot be called a scientific publication dealing with the proof of the existence of the measles virus, because only previous studies are compiled in the assumption that a measles virus exists. However, the submitted page 48 explicitly states: "As the description of the measles virus seems to be imprecise due to the presence of a synthesis of polycistronic RNAs, a virus infection produces unusual replicated products".

It seems highly unusual to treat such a literature collection as a "scientific publication". In particular, these authors restrict on page 38 that detailed studies of the measles virus are not as advanced and therefore the synthesis of two other viruses are used as models for discussion because specific data for the measles virus are not available. It is also shown on page 42 that the description of the measles virus is not exact.

On page 46 it is stated that the construction of an infectious measles virus must be the next major research goal.

These and other statements from this publication and the studies cited therein refute the assertions of the expert witness that in this or previous publications 1 to 4 a measles virus was identified and its components and diameter determined.

This book chapter summarizes and interprets the results of 98 previous publications, reviews and unpublished observations, in which the authors incorporate and cite their own results. The papers cited in it essentially comprise papers such as publications 1 to 4 and the work of further consensus building on what length and composition the genome of the claimed measles virus should have.

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 statement is false.

Apart from the fact that this paper does not contain any research of its own, this evidence is not contained in the review paper, nor in the citations of the studies cited therein. What is contained in the publications summarized in this review are, among other things, statements by different authors that mentally unite different nucleic acids from different sources from apes, humans and cattle to a common nucleic acid that does not exist as a whole. These typical cell nucleic acids of different origins are misinterpreted as the genome of the measles virus due to a lack of control experiments.

Control experiments that could rule out,

• that the cell death attributed to the suspected measles virus is caused by the experiment,
• that cellular structures are misinterpreted as a measles virus,
• that cell proteins are misinterpreted as a component of a measles virus, that cell nucleic acids are misinterpreted as the measles genome, are not found in this publication, nor in the publications cited therein.

They are, what is extremely unscientific and dishonest, not mentioned and not documented.

Thus, no measles virus is described in this study, as required by the award, so that the conditions of the award are not fulfilled.

1.2.6 Daikoku/Morita and others

This study explicitly deals with the question of how the size of a measles virus determines its infectiousness. Therefore, this study does not examine the question of the possible existence or non-existence of a measles virus, but presents it as given in the introduction. The study also does not speak of a measles virus, but of "measles virus-like parts". At the same time, it is pointed out that this study has not been able to clarify the virological and biological meanings of the various large measles virus particles". (page 112).

These researchers explicitly point out that almost no study of the morphology of the measles virus has been carried out because immunoelectron microscopy for viruses was not originally designed for the morphology of viruses (page 112).

The authors note that the structures shown in cells by cross-sectional imaging through cells could well be typical cellular structures such as Villi, although 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 were ignored by the authors at the time. The refutation of this technique by the authors of the 2nd publication is also not discussed by them. Control experiments are not mentioned at all in this publication.

The authors produce pellets by centrifugation from cell fragments, which they pass off as measles virus without any durable justification. From the photos of these pellets it can be concluded 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. This is an unscientific procedure.

Nevertheless, the authors claim that the pellets are measles viruses without providing scientifically qualified confirmation.

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

In a second experiment, cell fragments are pressed through pores of different sizes and, in an "infection experiment", accelerated cell death is induced with the pressed pellets of different sizes. 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 even the non-examined structures of the order of 50 to 1000 nm not isolated from the cells, which are shown in a cross-sectional image, but are in fact Villi and other cell components, are measles viruses. This conclusion is made without a basis of proof, is wrong and cannot be justified by anything.

In addition to the factors of reducing the nutrient solution to 20% and the administration of cell-killing chemicals in the so-called infection experiment, it has been proven that the released digestive secretions of dead cells in the "infection experiment" in the form of pellets or pellets of dead cells explain the observed cell death, which is equated with the presence of the suspected measles virus.

The expert's statement that the combination of two different techniques in this publication proves the existence of the measles virus is wrong. It is also wrong when he claims that the experiments performed in this publication are "sufficiently adequate and scientifically correct experiments". The opposite is demonstrably the case in form and content.

Thus, no measles virus is described in this study, as required by the award, so that the conditions of the award are not fulfilled.

2. The basis of this lawsuit is the claimant's claim. The prize money will be paid out if a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only claimed but also proven and in which, among other things, its diameter is determined, or the prize money will not be paid out if the determination of the diameter of the measles virus is only a model or drawing like the funny graphic printed in the original as an example.

These 5 studies and the literature review show that to date there is no exact morphology of the alleged measles virus, but these researchers each assume the existence of the measles virus as a given and then each check how to deal with the consequences of the measles infection.

Especially in the publications 3, 4 and 6 particles are shown which are supposed to represent the measles virus. However, these are only models of the measles virus produced artificially by pressing and pelletizing cell fragments in a test tube. The particles shown in the cells are typical cell constituents, as the authors of the 6th publication themselves state. Publications 1, 2 and 5 do not show any images at all that are supposed to represent measles virus.

None of the publications proves the existence of the measles virus in a scientifically tenable form, but they presuppose that it exists. Thus the essential point of the claim is not fulfilled.

Evidence: Expert opinion.

However, for this expert opinion, another expert will be requested to examine the 6 publications submitted to see whether they not only claim and insinuate the existence of the measles virus according to current scientific rules, but also prove it in their publications, as required by the award.

Another expert is already indicated because the expert asserted and explained to the court that a combination of the statements of the six publications produced the required evidence, although none of the publications presented individually produced this evidence. Contrary to the result of the individual examination of these publications, he claims that the individual statements were supported by "sufficiently adequate and scientifically correct experiments", which is wrong in itself. What is missing in the individual papers, namely the scientific proof of the existence of a measles virus, cannot be replaced by a summary and combination of the statements in the six publications.

The court could have had this finding even without the expert witness, but it accepted that the expert witness

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

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

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

d. constructs a conglomerate of the authors' statements in an incomprehensible and verifiable manner;

e. presents this conglomerate of 6 publications as a fact, with which the scientific proof for the existence of the measles virus is supposed to be provided.

f. claims diameters, although the diameters were only determined by means of models and were not made on isolated and proven viruses.

It is regrettable that the chairman, in spite of the rapporteur's inquiries and insistence on concrete, citable evidence, failed to ask the expert to back up his statements with concrete evidence in the form of quotations, thus justifying his conglomerate formation.

However, the court apparently disregarded the expert's statement that the general rules of scientific activity in biology would not apply. Apart from the fact that this is wrong, however, this would mean that the award could not be fulfilled because scientific work in this field of research would be excluded. If the scientific rules in biology do not apply, such scientific statements are not enforceable.

This and other criticism of the judicial expert's procedure can only be avoided by a new expert who is prepared to examine the submitted publications carefully with the question of the claim: "If in these publications the existence of a measles virus has been proven scientifically exactly by proving the diameter, not only models or drawings may be used".

Here it is again expressly stated that none of the publications proves the existence of the measles virus. It should be noted that this question of the existence of the measles virus was not the goal of the individual publishing researchers.

Nor do all six publications refute the defendant's assertion that a measles virus has never been seen, photographed or biochemically characterized in a human or body fluid. The models produced only by pressing or pelletizing from cell fragments or the typical cell components within cells were and are being issued as measles virus. They are assumed in the various studies to describe measles viruses, but do not provide the scientific evidence requested by the defendant.

Evidence: Expert opinion.

Therefore, the criteria specified by the defendant for the fulfillment of the call for tenders are not fulfilled, namely

a. To YOU (i.e. the Robert Koch Institute and PD Dr. Mankertz mentioned by name) the question of diameter must be asked, since diameter is of central importance.

b. The prize money will be paid out if ONE scientific publication is presented, in WHICH (i.e. ONE)

c. in which is ARGUED AND PROVEN (so it is an ORIGINAL WORK and not a summary)

d. by a "SCIENTIFIC" publication (scientific in its FORM and CONTENT)

e. in which the EXISTENCE of the measles virus is proven (which is only possible by documenting an ISOLATION and BIOCHEMICAL DETERMINATION of the ISOLAT)

f. and in which the DIAMETER is determined (which would only be possible by "NEGATIVE STAINING", which was never done)

g. however, the diameter must not be determined on the basis of MODELS AND DRAWINGS (which has been done using pellets from the 6th publication, which have not even been photographed and whose composition has been biochemically determined).

3. As far as the court deals with the question whether the claimant's claim was meant seriously, this can be confirmed as self-evident.

4. The awarding of the "klein-klein-Verlag" was not a public announcement. It was expressly addressed only to the recipients of the newsletter of the klein-klein-Verlag who had registered for it, i.e. it was not accessible to the public. The newsletter was stored in the newsletter archive on the klein-klein-verlag website.

5. The fact that the defendant explicitly referred to the IfSG in the call for applications and in the reply to the plaintiff means that it cannot be assumed that a publication by the Robert Koch Institute before the IfSG came into force on 1/01/2001 can be used as proof of the existence of the measles virus. In interpreting the text, the court had to take into account not only the context of the call for proposals given by the website, the numerous publications and activities of the klein-klein-verlag, which the court ignored, but also the history and intention of the IfSG and the establishment of the international scientific rules in 1998, which apply to all disciplines and which were explicitly made binding for the entire field of infection theories and vaccination by the IfSG.

In 2002, the RKI published and substantiated its explicit obligation to adhere to the international scientific rules first summarized by the DFG in 1998.

The defendant referred to the work of the RKI in the announcement and additionally in his letter to the plaintiff and quoted Dr. Annette Mankertz, who works there.

This made it clear and recognizable to the outside world that the award was aimed at the RKI and its legal and scientific legitimation and not at publications outside the RKI or those not explicitly stated as verified by the RKI.

Therefore, the defendant's demand, which had to be fulfilled in order for the call to take effect, was that the existence of the measles virus had to be proven by a publication by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which was responsible for this under § 4 IfSG. This was already evident from the fact that the rules of the IfSG, which were specially created for the proof of evidence in the field of infectious diseases, had to be applied to the awarding of the prize in Germany. As the RKI is responsible for research into the cause of infectious diseases in accordance with the provisions of § 4 IfSG, the mention of the measles virus in § 7 No. 31 IfSG is only admissible if the institute has scientific proof that the assertion made in the Act is correct on the basis of its own research that is in line with the current state of science and technology in accordance with § 1 IfSG. 

6. At his hearing, the expert witness stated for the record that the measles virus is refuted if ribosomes are contained in the measles virus. This is because viruses - including the measles virus - are defined by the absence of cellular components. The Regional Court did not take into account this statement of the expert witness for the record, his comments on this under point 6. on page 34 of the expert opinion and the defendant's party submission on this, namely the refutation of the measles virus, in the reasons for the judgment, although this is precisely what proves that the claim is not fulfilled by the submitted work. 

Prof. Dr. Mankertz (RKI) admitted, after inquiries and complaints triggered by the award, that the images of the measles virus published by the RKI originate from internal, unpublished studies and that, according to her investigations, the measles virus often contains ribosomes (typical cell components). If one compares this with the above cited statement of the court expert, with the statements in the expert opinion and with the party lecture, the defendant's claim is confirmed that the measles virus has been refuted and therefore has not been proven so far.

Therefore, it is again to be noted that the claim is not fulfilled.

From the context of the award, its purpose is clear in that it should be clarified whether the successful scientific proof of the pathogen has been documented by the RKI.

From the wording and the context it follows that the so-called Koch's postulates are not and cannot be part of the claim. Robert Koch himself never published these postulates. These postulates were formulated for the detection of bacteria and not for viruses, so they are not suitable for proving the existence of viruses.

Furthermore, they are unscientific, since they are not defined and exact, but appear in the secondary literature in a wide variety of forms. 

On these undefined and unpublished postulates, however, the expert witness and the court explicitly base their argumentation that a measles virus exists, although the authors of the six publications do not make any effort and do not mention these postulates.

Evidence: Expert opinion

The Defendant assumes that on all points and especially on this point of the ribosome refutation of the measles virus, Dr. Mankertz, who is a qualified measles virologist and head of the National Reference Center for Measles at the RKI, is also the ideal expert witness, or at least a suitable expert witness, so that the Defendant requests that she be summoned.

7. Under the heading "Cause, Prevention and Therapy of Measles", the award cites the book "The Measles Scam" as evidence for the defendant's specifications, which lists how measles - without the measles virus - develops. However, this offer of evidence was also ignored by the court.

The verdict of the Regional Court must therefore be amended. The complaint is to be dismissed.

Translated & 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