The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses

The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses

translated by Corona Investigative

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in Karlsruhe - Germany

Author: Dr. Stefan Lanka

On December 1, 2016, in the five-year "measles virus trial", the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe confirmed the sensational ruling of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court of February 16, 2016.

As of December 1, 2016, the highest court in Germany has ruled that all claims concerning measles infection, measles vaccination and the measles virus have no scientific basis.

The highest judicially confirmed judgement reasoning contains the clear naming of facts, which not only refute all assertions about measles infection, measles vaccination and the measles virus, but about all so-called "disease-causing viruses" and vaccinations.

Now the world waits for a first court case, in which this highest judicial jurisdiction is brought in, with which an inoculation obligation, an exclusion from school, an interference into the parental right or into the right to free choice of occupation is fended off, the acknowledgment of a vaccination damage or the untenability of the national inoculation recommendations is sued.

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

On November 24, 2011 I had offered a prize of 100.000 € for a scientific publication, in which the alleged existence of the "measles virus" is proven. This competition triggered the "bet that there is no measles virus" process. The media prejudgement was enormous. The "recognizing" court, the Regional Court (RC) Ravensburg, came under pressure and the presiding judge Matthias Schneider panicked.

By overstretching the law and ignoring all the facts presented in writing, Judge Schneider made a so-called ad hoc judgement on 12.3.2015, in the first part of the oral hearing, even before the expert had been passed and before the legally prescribed further steps of a civil case. Ad hoc judgments are judgments without the otherwise prescribed necessary reflection period of the court and the parties. In civil law, ad hoc rulings may only be made in very simple and clear cases.

In this way, the Regional Court of Ravensburg prevented me from being able to refute all the statements of the court-appointed expert during the legally regulated taking of evidence at the oral proceedings by means of the prepared documentation, which my attorneys had informed the court of the submission of. This rebuttal therefore took place later and cost-intensively only in the appeal proceedings before the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. If I had not been able to raise and deposit the enormous sums of money of over 150,000 € within the shortest possible time, the appeal proceedings would not have gone to the Federal Court of Justice. Without a lot of money, it is difficult to get justice in Germany.

With the raid-like "ad hoc ruling", the Ravensburg Regional Court prevented the possibility: "The parties are in dispute about the result of the evidence" as it is erroneously stated in the minutes of the hearing, without an orderly taking of evidence having been carried out and concluded and without the plaintiff's side action having been heard as well. The plaintiff claimed an insult, which is why I should pay him € 492.54 plus interest, without the alleged insult having been established and heard by the court. With the panic-stricken, inadmissible ad hoc verdict - the court's assessor and rapporteur asked the decisive questions and rebutted the expert witness during the expert witness questioning - Judge Schneider prevented me from filing the prepared motions and presenting my rebuttals to the expert witness' testimony.

As a precautionary measure, the presiding judge Matthias Schneider forbade me right at the beginning of the hearing to ask questions to the expert witness myself. The judge knew that I had published scientific expertise in the field of virology to be negotiated and that the judicial expert witness from another field had no published scientific expertise in the field of virology.

The judge sentenced me to pay the prize money of 100,000 €, together with high interest, all expenses and the high costs of the expert witness. The judge also ordered that the plaintiff can claim these sums even if I appeal. The plaintiff did this immediately and with maximum possible effort. He requested for this even an arrest warrant and maintained publicly falsely that this would have become effective. The plaintiff himself did not raise the security, which the law requires in order to demand a provisionally enforceable verdict.

This "gross misjudgement" of the Regional Court of Ravensburg was reversed on February 16, 2016 due to my successful appeal by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (HRC). Until today (02/28/2017: state of printing) the plaintiff has not released the 121.000 € I paid in and has not paid the lawyer, court and expert costs, although the judgement of the HRC Stuttgart of February 16, 2016 became final by the decision of the FCJ of December 1, 2016.

Difficult task of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court

The Stuttgart Higher Regional Court, which "fully" allowed my appeal, had a difficult task. How could the HRC, at the same time as my acquittal, protect the reputation of the judiciary, that of my colleagues in Ravensburg, that of the court-appointed expert, Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski, and above all that of Prof. Annette Mankertz from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)? With this ruling, the HRC Stuttgart tried to protect all parties involved - except for the plaintiff, the physician Dr. med. Bardens, who felt the concentrated displeasure of the court.

The court tried the balancing act and wrote world history. It elegantly exposed, now legally effective, the misbelief in the "measles virus", in the transmissibility of "measles" and in the possibility and effectiveness of the so-called "measles vaccinations". Not between the lines, but in the lines of the judgement, the facts can be read that all claims about all disease-causing viruses have been refuted.

The HRC Stuttgart had several problems with the submitted facts when formulating the judgement. Some of them tried to neutralize it legally, some simply put it in the room, without comment, without evaluating them legally. For example, all written and oral statements of the court expert, Prof. Podbielski, on which the entire proceedings rest, are obviously and demonstrably false. (1) In my appeal I refuted all statements of the expert. In addition, the appeal included five expert opinions, each of which refutes the statements of Prof. Podbielski. The fourth expert opinion confirms that Prof. Podbielski, as a mere bacteriologist, has no practical and published competence in the field of virology. He should never have been appointed as an expert witness.

A large problem, which the HRC Stuttgart tried in vain to solve, will attach to the court also in the future. It is the fact that the pro-virus expert, Prof. Podbielski, refuted himself in the hearing at the Regional Court of Ravensburg. In the crossfire of questions from the reporting judge, Dr. Anna-Maria Brutscher, he admitted that his earlier written and central statements about the "measles virus" are wrong. This central and judicially recorded refutation of the expert witness by himself was suppressed by the HRC Stuttgart in the judgement just as the Regional Court of Ravensburg did.

This important and only true factual statement of Prof. Podbielski in the minutes of the hearing of March 12, 2015 has not been removed or changed. The HRC Stuttgart had to suppress this fact in order to protect the expert witness and the Regional Court Ravensburg from possible negative consequences, although this "refutation of the expert witness by himself" is repeatedly, explicitly and unambiguously brought forward in the "admissible" appeal.

A brilliant move on the part of the court, on the other hand, was the way the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) dealt with the most concrete refutation of the existence of the "measles virus". The RKI, the highest state and scientific authority in the field of infection allegations, refuted all claims of existence of the "measles virus" by a document introduced into the proceedings. The RKI, in the person of Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the RKI, at the same time refuted the previous claims of the government agencies that "measles vaccinations" are well tolerated and have no side effects (see below) with its statement on the "measles virus".

The expert witness, Prof. Podbielski, in his comments on the above-mentioned document of the RKI, not only refuted the claims of existence of the "measles virus", but at the same time the allegedly "scientific" proof of all "disease-causing viruses" (see below). The HRC Stuttgart decided to mention these facts, but not to evaluate and not to exploit them. The court hoped that nobody would read the verdict. As a distraction, the court accused the media after the end of the trial of legally irrelevant, bite-sized chunks that had been swallowed and reported undigested.

Events on February 16, 2016 before the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart

Thus, on 02/16/2016, 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 highly irresponsibly by filing and maintaining the suit. The court proved to the plaintiff, the physician Dr. med. David Bardens from Homburg, that he himself had not read the six publications which are supposed to contain the proof of the "measles virus" and which he named before the Regional Court of Ravensburg as proof of the existence of the measles virus. Bardens confessed.

In the written reasons for the judgement, which the HCR Stuttgart published on its homepage on the Internet,2 the court went one step further. It mentions in paragraph 30 of the judgement the fact that the plaintiff did not submit the six publications to the Regional Court of Ravensburg, which sentenced me. Dr. Bardens' motivation here: The recognizing court should not be able to examine the extreme unscientificness and lack of content of the six "proof" publications, which I complained about and which any interested layperson would have noticed if he or she had only been able to see them.

The court of first instance, the Regional Court of Ravensburg, actually sentenced me without having the evidence documents at hand that the trial was about. On this basis of deliberately not taking note of the six publications, the Regional Court of Ravensburg was able to convict me. Thus, contrary to my written findings of fact, the court was able to assert that these six publications, which are recognizably extremely unscientific for any interested layperson, are "scientific" without making any untrue statements themselves. The court left this to the expert witness, Prof. Podbielski, who was appointed by the court. This team of court and expert witness wrote to each other with their first names in internal e-mail correspondence, which came to my attention by chance.

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 to remember: the court had decided 3:0 against him with three judges. This is a novelty in German legal history. Never before has a court publicly stated whether it decided 3:0, 0:3, 2:1 or 1:2. This emotionality of the judge is not surprising when one has read up on the subject and becomes aware of the dimensions of medical malpractice. From a biological point of view, it is not surprising that the presiding judge was denied a voice when reading out the verdict. He went "into solution."

The plaintiff remained unreasonable

Despite this clear reference of the chairman judge to let the "clear" case rest, despite the obviousness of the strategy of the HRC to protect the involved ones, the plaintiff took again tens of thousands euro into the hand and let in an exclusive Kanzlei examine whether he could tilt the judgement of the HRC Stuttgart by the Federal Court of Justice (FCJ).

He risked, from what the presiding judge at the HRC tried to keep him away with all his might, that the "sins" of the judges at the Regional Court Ravensburg, of the expert, Prof. Podbielski and possibly even of the judges at the HRC Stuttgart at the FCJ would be addressed. Dr. Bardens, worldwide the only young physician with his own entry on Wikipedia, knew all scientific refutations, the refutations by the four counter-opinions, the refutation of the expert by himself, the refutation of the "measles virus" assertions by the RKI and the refutation of all "measles virus" assertions by the compelling genetic counter-evidence of the fifth expert opinion, which is obvious to everyone. The "genes" of the "measles virus" are in fact the "genes" of completely normal, healthy cells (see the article on this subject in this issue).

The Chamber accepted its money gladly, formulated listlessly but wordy, untrue and content-empty, in order to get the lost "Bet that the alleged measles virus does not exist" process at the FCJ again in motion. The plaintiff Dr. Bardens claimed in his complaint to the FCJ that I was a danger to public health, that the HRC Stuttgart had violated his basic rights in the hearing on February 16, 2016 and that the case was of fundamental importance for the further development of the law.

The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) rejected the untrue reasoning of the plaintiff on 12/01/2016 with clear words. The FCJ justified the rejection with the following words:

"On December 1, 2016, the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice passed a resolution by the presiding judge, Prof. Dr. Büscher, the judges, Prof. Dr. Schaffert, Dr. Kirchoff, Prof. Dr. Koch and Feddersen The plaintiff's appeal against the non-admission of the appeal in the judgment of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court - 12th Civil Senate - of February 16, 2016, is dismissed because the case has no fundamental significance, the complaints based on the infringement of fundamental procedural rights are not upheld and the further development of the law or the safeguarding of uniform jurisprudence do not require a decision by the Court of Appeal in other respects either (Sec. 543 (2), first sentence, ZPO). Pursuant to § 544 (4) sentence 2 half-sentence 2 of the ZPO, no further justification is required."

The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal proceedings (§ 97  Paragraph 1 ZPO). (3)

Thus, the judgment of the HRC Stuttgart of February 16, 2016 and its statements since December 1, 2016 has become legally binding and an integral part of the German jurisdiction confirmed by the highest court.

The main content of the written judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart of February 16, 2016

Under paragraph number 122 of the judgment, the HRC concluded that my appeal was successful because "the proof of the existence of the measles virus by ' a scientific publication' was not fulfilled by the plaintiff. The court referred to the court-appointed expert witness, Prof. Podbielski, who testified in writing and orally on record before the recognizing court of first instance that none of the six publications submitted by Dr. Bardens contained proof of the existence of the "measles virus".

The expert witness provides evidence of the existence of the assumed "measles virus" on page 27 of his expertise dated November 17, 2014: 

" Thereby, however, the validity of a single one of the 6 articles is not sufficient, but the statements of combinations of the 6 articles are necessary for the proof ." (4)

That for the proof of the alleged existence of the measles virus "the statements from combinations of the 6 articles are necessary for the proof", the HRC Stuttgart rejects for legal, logical and scientific reasons decidedly and unanimously, 3:0.

Prof. Podbielski's construct of making scientific evidence out of six unproven facts, which the Regional Court of Ravensburg followed, was rejected by the Court of Appeal with detailed reasons in paragraphs 82, 85 and 86 of the written judgement. (5)

Thus, it was judicially determined and is now German jurisdiction, which can no longer be doubted that none of the six publications contains any proof of the existence of the "measles virus".

Two all decisive things

It has been German jurisdiction since December 1, 2016, the date of the confirmation of the measles virus trial verdict of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court by the Federal Court of Justice, that the first publication in the measles virus trial, the publication of the Nobel Prize winner, John Franklin Enders and his colleagues in 1954, also does not constitute proof of the alleged existence of the suspected "measles virus".

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

  1. that this publication is the sole and exclusive basis of all other approx. 30,000 "scientific" publications on the subject of "measles virus", "infection" of measles and "protective vaccination" against measles All statements on the "measles virus", the transmissibility of measles and measles vaccination are based exclusively and only on this publication. Since it is now case law that this publication does not contain any evidence for the alleged existence of the assumed measles virus, it is clear that all 30,000 specialist publications on these topics are without foundation.

In this key publication, Enders notes that cells in the test tube die with or without a presumed "infection" from suspected "measles viruses" in the saliva or blood of sick people. He concludes in this paper that the death of the cells could be evidence of either the presence and proliferation 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 paper that his experiments with cells in the test tube may have nothing to do with the real measles in humans. (6)

At the end of 1954 Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for such speculations. He and his colleagues forgot their own refutations and doubts - the end of all scientific knowledge - and claimed that exactly this procedure from 1954 would propagate the measles virus and at the same time be the basis of all future vaccine development. This is how it has remained until today. His protocol from this 1954 publication is still used today to allegedly propagate the "measles virus" and use the dying cells as a vaccine.

In reality, Enders and his colleagues under the influence of the Nobel Prize, and consequently all virologists to this day, have overlooked the fact that they unintentionally starve and poison the cells before the actual "infection experiment" even begins. Cell components were isolated from the mixture of dying cells, never a "virus". According to an imaginary model of what a virus should look like, a consensus was reached over a period of years, and the following ideas - not factual - the cell components found are assigned to the virus model. These "viruses" do not appear anywhere in reality. Typical cell components, e.g. the adhesive feet of the cells, called villi, were misinterpreted as "viruses" in cross-sectional images.

The measles vaccine, which is said to consist of attenuated "live measles viruses", consists exclusively of starved and poisoned cells. Since vaccinations are supposed to produce reactions against the vaccinated proteins, it is clear why measles vaccination in particular causes significantly more vaccination damage in the form of mild to severe allergic reactions and - in the best scientifically proven sense possible - also autism. (7)

Enders did not conduct control experiments that easily determine whether a virus or starvation and poisoning is the cause of cell death. They are not carried out by "science" until today. We have carried out these control experiments as part of the "measles virus process". The results prove that the conditions that Enders established in 1954, starvation and poisoning of cells, lead to cell death without "infection" having taken place. In the coming issue of WissenschafftPlus we will document these control experiments and the results.

2. and on the other hand, that the HRC/FCJ case law on the "measles virus" is significant in that today all "disease-causing viruses" are "detected" with the method introduced by Enders in 1954. This method, which Enders described in mid-1954 as "speculation to be regarded with extreme caution", became a "scientific fact" and the model and standard for all current methods of detecting "pathogenic viruses" when Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize on December 10, 1954.

On February 16, 2016, the HRC Stuttgart not only wrote world history on the "measles virus", but also refuted the "scientific nature" of the claims of existence of all "disease-causing viruses" and the usefulness of the "protective" vaccinations.

As of the announcement of the legal validity of the Stuttgart HRC judgement of 02/16/2016 by the Federal Court of Justice on 12/01/2016, all "measles vaccinations" and coercive measures in this regard are illegal. Measles vaccinations per se and all related restrictive measures are prohibited from December 1, 2016, as they are no longer justifiable and are subject to criminal prosecution for interfering with 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 established by means of a further decision or judgement.

Refutation of the "measles virus" and refutation of the alleged harmlessness of the measles vaccination by Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)

The "Bet that the alleged measles virus does not exist" contest (8) achieved the desired success as early as 2012. The contest names the all-important fact that we have been working on since 1995 and documented in our books and magazine: The RKI, the highest scientific authority in the field of infection theories and vaccination appointed by the federal government, and the highest federal and state health authorities make all claims about infections and vaccinations without any scientifically published basis.

The inquiries triggered by the competition and the course of the complaint way, which was likewise represented in the competition, resulted in the desired, predicted and already in former times several times furnished proof. The responsible health care leaders are acting deliberately and against their better knowledge regarding infection claims and vaccinations. Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, head of the National Reference Institute at the RKI, admitted this essential fact, which we have been naming and deploring since 1995, as a result of the inquiries relating to the measles virus: The RKI would have prepared internal studies on the "measles virus", but will not publish them, contrary to the RKI's clear obligation to publish all studies.

The legal department of the RKI, the then head of the RKI, his superior in the Federal Ministry of Health, the Federal Minister of Health and the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag refused to act responsibly, despite complaints and requests to do so, to follow the law and justice and to ensure that the RKI carries out scientific investigations and publishes them.

The reason for the refusal to conduct and publish investigations on the "measles virus" became clear with the admission of the RKI on January 24, 2012. This document refutes the "measles virus" claim of existence and the claims that the measles vaccination is safe and effective. The RKI writes in it:

"Measles viruses, like other paramyxoviruses, do not show precise size, not a precise diameter: they measure from 120 - 400 nm in diameter and often contain ribosomes inside. " (9)

"Ribosomes" are the cell-own factories with which humans, animals and plants produce their proteins. 

Since the "measles virus" is defined by the fact that it does not contain any "ribosomes", this admission of the RKI refutes all claims of existence of the measles virus! Even more: The RKI has thus admitted that it works with normal components of life and cells instead of "measles viruses". Even more, the RKI has thus provided proof of why the measles vaccination in particular, ahead of all other standard vaccinations, has the highest rate of vaccination damage in the form of allergies and autoimmune reactions is created. 

The auxiliary substances contained in all vaccines (so-called adjuvants, in reality potent nerve toxins) are supposed to stimulate immune reactions against the claimed viruses. In fact, the body develops immune reactions, but instead of the claimed 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 to this day and has not informed the public or the expert public about this. The RKI has thus violated its legal obligations to protect the health of the population and to keep harm away from people.

The Regional Court Ravensburg and the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart ignored in the "measles virus process" my written and verbally presented fact designations in this connection. Likewise, both courts ignored my written requests to summon Prof. Mankertz of the RKI as a witness without responding to them in writing or orally. This is a serious matter, since it became known during the trial by the RKI that measles vaccination recognizably endangers the health of the population and that the recommendation for measles vaccination alone represents a scientific and legally inadmissible encroachment on the fundamental right of people to life and physical integrity according to Article 2, Sentence 2 of the German Constitution.

The HRC asserts with reference to the "ribosomes in the measles virus finding of the RKI" in paragraph 117 of the judgment

"that allegedly (emphasis by me) it has not been clarified whether ribosomes have been found inside the measles viruses at the RKI and this excludes the characteristic as a virus."

The court obviously hopes that readers will believe the court that the "ribosome argument" has been clarified and refuted by the court. In fact, the RKI's statement of facts was not clarified and not prosecuted. The proof: Even after February 16, 2016, measles vaccinations will continue to be inoculated "against" dozens of different skin diseases, but these will only be diagnosed as measles if the person affected reacts positively in the "measles virus test". Depending on how these different "measles virus" test procedures are set up, few, many or all people are "positive" with this test - regardless of whether they are healthy or sick. (10)

We have achieved a small goal: Through the lawsuit of the doctor, Dr. med. Bardens and the "measles virus lawsuit" started by it, these facts became known to a larger number of citizens and responsible persons. The trial received massive national and global coverage. We are sure that we have reached another goal: We are grateful to Dr. David Bardens for this joint success in preventing the introduction of compulsory vaccination for the particularly risky measles vaccine, as demanded by politicians.

The refutation of the entire virology and the expert Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski by himself 

In paragraph 117 of its ruling of February 16, 2016, the HRC Stuttgart states that the expert has refuted the entire virology. The expert is quoted as saying: "The conceptual understanding of the virus is in a state of flux. (11)

When something is in flux, it is not scientifically defined and must not be asserted as a fact in public. I have requested in writing and in the public hearing on February 16, 2016, that if something is not scientifically defined, it is not legally definable and therefore Dr. Bardens' claim should be dismissed. The HRC ignored this point in order to protect the parties involved.

What Prof. Podbielski did not mention is the fact that renowned "virologists", as in 1951 and 1952, are again in the process of revolutionizing and redefining the entire field of virology. They have recognized that structures that were misinterpreted as "viruses" are themselves alive and that our cell nuclei have emerged from them. They advocate that these structures, in addition to the previously discovered "realms " of life, the primordial bacteria, the bacteria and the real cells, be recognized as the fourth realm of life and be called so. As a young student I was lucky to be the first to isolate such a harmless structure from the sea, to characterize it completely and of course - together with control experiments - to publish it scientifically. (12)

What the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court also attempted to castigate with its comments in paragraph 116 of the judgement of 16 February 2016 is explained in the following.

In 1997, the world's largest science fraud ever became public. All the data surrounding the claims of the "hepatitis B virus" and a vaccination against cancer, involving hundreds and the most prominent AIDS, genetic, immune, infection and cancer scientists, were not only fake, but freely invented. Dozens of public prosecutors, parliamentarians and politicians then called for science fraud to be made a criminal offence. Acts are only punishable if they were defined as a criminal offence at the time of the act.

The German Research Society (Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft - DFG), an association that distributes the billions in research funds on behalf of governments, called on politicians not to introduce the planned criminal offence of "science fraud". The DFG claimed that science can only control itself. To convince politicians that they 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, which have always been the same for all scientific disciplines, in the form of a binding set of rules, as the constitution of international science, and making them internationally binding. This then also happened.

In Germany, since 1998, all scientists and institutions receiving state research funds have been obliged to comply with this ingenious, logical and simple set of rules in their work and when preparing expert reports.

The following is central to any new method introduced that is intended to produce scientific findings:

"Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental setup are a central component of the scientific methodology in order to verify applied methods and to exclude disturbing factors."

Publications without documented performance of control experiments must not be presented as scientific. (14)

The sole 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 proof of the action of viruses or that of unknown factors. Only the Nobel Prize at the end of 1954 turned these self-refuting speculations into a scientific fact: "It is viruses when cells die " (15) Since he did not carry out any control experiments, Enders and all his successors have not noticed to this day that starvation and poisoning are the cause of the death of cells in the test tube and not suspected viruses.

The court-appointed expert witness, Prof. Podbielski, in his "supplementary statement" of 03/03/2015, on page 3, under point 6 on the six publications of the measles virus trial claims: "The necessary data and control experiments to exclude cell-own artifacts instead of the measles virus are included in the expert articles - see my expert report " (16) This statement is a proven false statement with far-reaching consequences.

On March 12, 2015, in the crossfire of questions posed by the assessor and rapporteur of the oral hearing before the Ravensburg Regional Court, he admitted: "I cannot say now whether there is an article that comprehensively presents the same things as the original articles mentioned, without showing their methodological weaknesses, for example with the negative controls that are indeed missing." (17)

With this, he refuted his written statement of March 3, 2015 himself. With this he has refuted all his statements that the six publications presented are scientifically and in the measles virus process usable and that it is proven that there is a measles virus etc.

Although I presented and proved the fact of the lack of control attempts and the recorded refutation of the expert witness by himself in the appeal, the Court of Appeal suppressed this fact. The Regional Court of Ravensburg had condemned me by suppressing this recorded statement of the fact of the absence of all control attempts when the ad hoc judgment was rendered and in the written grounds of the judgment. Or did Judge Matthias Schneider of the Ravensburg District Court - omitting the legally required steps of a trial - pronounce the ad hoc verdict because the expert, Prof. Podbielski, refuted himself by the clear questions posed by his assessor Dr. Anna-Maria Brutscher?

The HRC Stuttgart writes in its judgment under Number 116: "To the extent that the defendant shows that the judgment is based on false premises in any case in so far as the expert did not state that the publications contain control experiments to exclude cell-specific artifacts (p. 23 of the judgment under b., para. 2), this cannot be accepted. In his additional statement of 03/03/2015, p. 3 (sheet 134 of the judgment) under 6. the expert just refers to this and states that the necessary data and control experiments for the exclusion of cell-own artifacts instead of the measles virus are contained in the expert articles, referring to his expert opinion." (18)

Also the HRC Stuttgart suppresses in its judgement of February 16, 2016 the on March 12, 2015 judicially logged fact of the refutation of the expert by itself. It is hereby proven that the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart suppresses the absence of any control attempts as presented in the appeal, the false statements of the court expert presented in the appeal and also the rebuttal of the court expert, Prof. Podbielski, by himself as recorded on March 12, 2015 in order to protect the expert.

How the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court tried to pull itself out of the affair without success

The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart writes in line 121 of the measles virus judgement, to the appraisals introduced by me into the procedure that these were not considered in the judgement, "because not decision-relevant. (19) In doing so, the court suppressed the fact that genetic sequence comparisons in the expert opinion of February 10, 2016, clearly refuted all claims of the existence of the measles virus (see the article on this in this issue of WissenschafftPlus No. 2/2017).

Vaccination, however, is legally an "actually existing, punishable interference with the right to life and physical integrity", which is only exempt from punishment if the vaccinated person or the person with custody has documented, legally effective consent. Because the HRC Stuttgart came to the knowledge of facts which fundamentally refute the legal effectiveness of vaccinations, the attempt of the HRC described here to "withdraw from the affair" cannot be justified.

All citizens are called upon and especially civil servants are obliged to act independently and to involve the responsible security and prosecution authorities if unjustified and without being legally legitimized to do so, the highest constitutional goods are encroached upon. Judges are not excluded from this. The fact that the presiding judge at the HRC is well informed about all decisive details and the importance of science and scholarship has been sufficiently proven by him in my questioning during the public hearing on February 16, 2016.

Prominent imitators, bad losers

The well-known actor Robert De Niro and the nephew of former U.S. President Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have also put up a $100,000 prize money for a scientific proof of vaccination. They will give it to whoever presents them with a scientific publication that proves the harmlessness of mercury in the vaccines. Both assume that vaccinations are particularly harmful because they contain extremely toxic substances. The son of Robert De Niro became autistic at the moment of vaccination. This is biological proof that vaccinations can cause autism. (20)

As bad loser the plaintiff, the Homburger physician Dr. med. Bardens, turned out, who works meanwhile in Sweden. As explanation that he lost the process at the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart and at the Federal High Court of Justice in Karlsruhe, which was initiated by him, he presented in the media a statement freely invented by him. He claims that he lost due to a formal error. Dr. Bardens claims that he lost because he submitted six publications instead of one.

In the oral proceedings before the HRC Stuttgart and in the written opinion of the judgement, nothing of the kind can be found. On the contrary. Dr. Bardens lost the case because the court-appointed expert found that none of the six publications submitted contained evidence of the existence of a virus. This was also the only true statement of the expert witness, Prof. Podbielski. The argumentation of Prof. Podbielski, "the statements of combinations of the six publications are necessary for the proof [of the measles virus]", was explicitly rejected by the HRC Stuttgart, as documented above.

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


(1) See: The notice of appeal dated 07/07/2015 was published in issues no. 5 and 6/2015 of the magazine WissenschafftPlus. My statement to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court of 10.12.2015, which is part of the appeal, was published in five episodes in issues No. 1/2016 to No. 5/2016 of the magazine WissenschafftPlus. The expert opinion of a professor from the field of virology of December 10, 2015, which is part of the appeal, was published in issues No. 6/2016 and No. 1/2017 of the magazine WissenschafftPlus. To order in the Shop at the given link (German only).

(2) Verdict of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court of February 16, 2016, file number: 12 U 63/15, (German only).

(3) This decision of the Federal High Court (Bundesgerichtshof), file number: I ZR 62/16, (German only).

(4) The expert opinion of Prof. Podbielski dated 11/17/2014 (German only)

(5) See 2.

(6) See: 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.

(7) See the remarks to Autismus and inoculation damage in the magazine WissenschafftPlus No. 3/2016 to order in the Shop at given link (German only).

(8) See: "Bet that the alleged measles virus does not exist!"

(9) See: Letter from the RKI dated January 24, 2012, which was brought forward in my defense in the measles virus trial and was brought into the proceedings by the Regional Court of Ravensburg by reading out. Both courts, the Regional Court of Ravensburg and the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart ignore the contents of the letter in their verdicts, although it is the fundamental and constant task of every civil servant to avert dangers to life and limb of all citizens by becoming ACTIVE.

(10) We are currently preparing the experiments that will prove in practice that the "measles virus test procedures" currently used by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) are set up in such a way that not only sick people but also healthy people will be tested "measles virus positive". Either all of them are 20% positive (without measles epidemic) or 80% positive (in case of a measles epidemic claimed by the RKI). 

(11) See 2.

(12) See article „Riesenviren und die Entstehung des Lebens“(Giant viruses and the origin of life) in the magazine WissenschafftPlus No. 1/2014. To order in the Shop at the given link (German only).

(13) See: Wikipedia entry Friedhelm Herrmann (German only).

(14) See: Page 3-6 of my statement of 02/02/2015 on the legal opinion of Prof. Podbielski (German only).

(15) See comments on this in the magazine WissenschafftPlus No. 2/2016.

(16) See "Supplementary statement of Prof. Podbielski of 03/03/2015 (German only).

(17) See page 7, above, of the minutes of the hearing at Ravensburg Regional Court (German only).

(18) See 2.

(19) See 2.

(20) See 7.

Report Page