The notice of appeal in the measles virus trial

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

Foreword by Dr. Stefan Lanka

Foreword

In the appeal hearing in the measles virus process, which was set for December 15, 2015 at the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, the aim is to overturn the first instance decision. The background of the judgement is that Dr. Lanka has announced a prize money of 100,000 € in 2011 for the submission of (1.) ONE (2.) ORIGINAL publication from the (3.) ROBERT-KOCH-INSTITUTE (RKI). In this publication the (4.) EXISTENCE of the alleged measles virus (5.) must be SCIENTIFICALLY proven and the (6.) DIAMETER of the measles virus must be determined. When determining the diameter (7.) NO MODELS or drawings must be used.

A young doctor from a different field sent in not one but six extremely unscientific publications, all of which were not from the RKI. They describe how cells are killed in the test tube, which was misinterpreted as proof of the action and presence of a measles virus. One virus does not appear in the six publications and the diameter of the suspected measles virus was determined using an artificially created model of a virus. Since all seven conditions of the contest were not met, Dr. Lanka refused to pay the prize money.

The young doctor filed a complaint, switched on the mass media and won. He activated the media via an anonymous and criminal Internet site of his acquaintance, which calls for the killing of people who question the claims of orthodox medicine. To uphold the complaint, the court decided to override criteria (1.) (2.) and (3.) of the contest. An expert had to investigate whether any of the six publications contained scientific proof of the existence of the virus. The reviewers concluded that none of the six publications contained proof of the existence of the measles virus.

In court, the expert witness testified that in biology the strict rules of science do not apply, but rather acknowledgements by majorities. On this basis, he described statements from the six extremely unscientific publications as scientific. He claimed that these and freely invented statements together would prove the existence of the measles virus. The court was presented with a statement by the RKI that typical cell components (ribosomes) are found inside the measles virus. The expert testified that there are no viruses with ribosomes and that viruses are defined by the absence of ribosomes. This refutation of the "measles virus" by the expert and the RKI was suppressed by the court in the written reasons for the judgement.

Below you will find the appeal writing of the lawyer of Dr. Lanka.

The appeal

1. On the basis of the following submissions in the appeal, the action must be dismissed. The plaintiff has no claim to payment of an amount of 100.000,-- €, because the conditions of the award of the defendant are not fulfilled.

1.1 The background of the entire legal dispute consists of the fact that the defendant names verifiable, recognized and scientifically proven facts, which are called and rejected by the school medicine as opinion. However, the defendant is a biologist and virologist known in specialist circles, who is himself demonstrably a virus discoverer. The existence of the "virus" isolated and proven by him, which like all existing viruses are not only not harmless but useful, has never been doubted, since its existence - like the existence of further 2,700 viruses - was published clearly and in accordance with all rules of scientific work in a scientific publication. 

Still unnoticed by the public, a paradigm shift is taking place in virology, and "viruses" have been recognized as the building blocks from which human cells were created. Leading virologists are campaigning for the structures that were previously known as viruses to be given a different name and to be given their own kingdom of life alongside cells, bacteria and primordial bacteria. The defendant isolated the first "virus" on the basis of which this fact was established.

"Disease-causing" viruses, on the other hand, could not be proven to exist to this day in compliance with the rules of scientific work. It has been proven that typical cell components were misinterpreted as "disease-causing" viruses. This misinterpretation is not acknowledged in orthodox medicine, because in this field the control experiments, which are mandatory in science, have never been and will never be carried out, with which it can and must be excluded that the results are not caused by the experiment itself.

The defendant states the verifiable fact that the measles viruses claimed here have not yet been scientifically proven and therefore may not be claimed to exist. He assumes that diseases allegedly caused by viruses have different causes in each case. Scientific publications, not least his diploma and doctoral thesis, resulted from the defendant's own investigations. And in cooperation with his professors and international scientists, he came to the conclusion that it has never been possible to scientifically prove the existence of so-called disease-causing viruses. This research revealed that instead of viral structures, typical cell components and properties of dying cells in the test tube were misinterpreted as "viruses". The defendant researched the background and history of this misguided development in medicine and presented it in scientific publications.

1.2 On the other hand, the expert in the proceedings stated that almost all the scientific articles accepted as necessary and sufficient by the relevant scientific community, i.e. all measles virus researchers and medical users of these research results worldwide, had been published to prove the existence and the structural and molecular nature of the measles virus.

The Robert Koch Institute in Berlin also belonged to this group. Until the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), which came into force on January 1, 2001, this authority, the Robert Koch Institute, explicitly referred to the fact that the assertions of the existence of disease-causing viruses were based on an international consensus of the majority of the scientists involved, which eludes concrete verification. Now §4 IfSG stipulates that the responsible higher authority for infectious diseases must conduct independent research on pathogenic viruses. Therefore, renowned health authorities and their representatives now admit that the public claims about "pathogenic viruses" and "infectious diseases" are not based on scientific evidence.

1.3 The defendant therefore assumes that it has never been successful and in his opinion will not succeed in scientifically proving such so-called disease-causing viruses, as the text of the award shows.

Therefore, he challenged the opponents of his opinion with the award of 100,000 €, with a scientific publication to be submitted, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only claimed, but also proofs

• the shape, size and composition of the measles virus which he contests, without models or drawings being submitted
• based on a study that
• must be developed in accordance with the binding rules of science, as they were formulated in 1998 and laid down in the Infection Protection Act of January 1, 2001. 

1.4 The court and the expert did not examine these prerequisites in the publications submitted, but apparently proceeded from the prevailing opinion that vaccinations could combat viruses and cure the disease.

This orientation of the argumentation of the Court and the expert is supported by the Court's statement that the defendant failed to submit a scientific paper proving the non-existence of viruses. This has absolutely nothing to do with the claim.

It is not the defendant who has to prove that viruses do not exist, but after the claim, the plaintiff has to prove the shape and size of the virus by means of a scientific paper.

The expert evaluated 6 papers, which were already known to the defendant like hundreds of others, together as scientific proof of the morphology and size of the measles virus.

In view of the extent of these 6 papers, which were written in English, it is unreasonable to make them the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, the court is largely obliged to take note of the expert's statements without being able to verify the statements and findings in the submitted articles itself.

The language of the court is German, so that the plaintiff should be ordered to file the 6 articles submitted by him translated into German. The undersigned has taken the trouble to read the 6 papers in English and has presented below the results of this own investigation in the individual papers. Had they been available in German, the reading and above all the presentation of the quotations would have been simplified.

If one reads these 6 papers, one also comes to the conclusion - without being a biologist or virologist - that the expert wrongly assessed the 6 papers - even if only in their entirety - as scientific evidence for the morphology and size of the measles virus.  However, this is not correct.

Contrary to the statements of the expert and the court, none of the studies presented describe a measles virus. Rather, it is assumed and presumed to exist, while the study itself examines the consequences of this presumption.

All six submitted publications violate the criterion to work "lege artis", since in none of these publications the experiments were conducted at the respective state of the art. In all these publications, the paradigms, methods and techniques of the 19th century are applied, but the appropriate methods and latest findings of the 20th and 21st centuries are ignored.

The control experiments required and imperative in the scientific rules are not performed in any of the publications presented and the publications cited therein. The respective contradictory results are not consistently challenged, nor are the findings of others that question the results and hypotheses presented.

The criteria of quality assurance are not fulfilled in any of the publications submitted.

For this reason, the six publications submitted and the other publications cited therein cannot be described as "scientific" in terms of content or form.

Since none of the publications contain control experiments, they prove the opposite of a virus, namely the detection and characterization of components and properties of cells in the test tube that have been brought to experimental death.

The 5th and 6th publication, on which the expert and the court explicitly and mainly rely in their justifications, are demonstrably not scientific publications, since 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 and the court that these publications 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 under no circumstances may the authors' own work and results be presented, discussed and cited in scientific reviews, is also refuted by the 5th publication, a non-scientific review: The authors demonstrably discuss and quote themselves in this work and often do so.

A serious error in the judgement is to be found in the reasoning of the Regional Court under point 113 in the grounds of the judgement. Contrary to the statement of the expert witness presented by the court, the expert witness did not at any point, neither in writing in the expert opinion nor verbally at the hearing, state that ".... in particular also contains the necessary data and control experiments in the publications presented, on the basis of which it can be excluded that only cell-specific artifacts - as which the defendant classifies the alleged measles viruses - are present.

For all experiments discussed in the six publications presented, no control experiments have been conducted that could exclude that the structures, proteins and nucleic acids presented are components of the cells and fluids used. The same applies vice versa: The expert defines viruses as "ordered conglomerates of proteins and a nucleic acid". Such a conglomerate does not appear in any of these studies. Neither is such a conglomerate isolated and the isolation shown, nor is the isolate biochemically characterized and proven to consist of a given number of specific proteins and a specific nucleic acid.

Such a claim is not included in the presented publications or elsewhere. 

In contrast to the approximately 2,700 existing virus species, whose existence has been proven by the presentation of the isolation of the virus and its biochemical composition in a single publication, this has never been achieved with the measles virus or any other "disease-causing" virus. Everything that has been issued here over decades, in the laborious act of consensus finding, individually and successively as components of the measles virus, has proven to be cell-specific components.

Evidence: Expert opinion

In this central assertion (under point/line 113), the Regional Court ignores the party presentation of the defendant's statement of February 2, 2015. The expert witness stated in the expert opinion on page 22, bottom of the 3rd publication (Nakai&Imagawa, 1969) that the "identity of sprouts in infected cells" was specific to the measles virus because these "structured sprouts in non-infected cells" did not exist.

However, this is not true: In this publication, "control preparations" are mentioned in one sentence, but they have only been tested in a "similar" way. These tests are not documented, not mentioned and not discussed. Also in all other studies, control experiments were never performed, "non-infected cells" were never treated in the same way as "infected cells" and in "non-infected" cells, such sprouts were never searched for, the search was never documented or even claimed.

In addition, the expert witness stated in the expert opinion on page 32 above, with reference to the central importance of nucleic acid for proving the existence of a virus, that with the very precise nucleic acid detection techniques "the presence of measles viruses in infected patients and only in the area of the infected anatomical compartments can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Regional Court assumes this to be correct, neglecting the parties' submission to the defendant's statement of February 2, 2015. However, this is not true, as such experiments have never been performed or documented in the form of publications. However, if they were ever carried out, the "measles virus" would be detected everywhere and in every human being, whether healthy or sick.

The defendant insinuates and assumes that the expert witness, as a proven nucleic acid expert, also knows very well that these experiments were not carried out and were not published anywhere in the "established" specialist science. However, through an Internet search of public nucleic acid databases, it is easy to establish that the so-called nucleic acid sequences of the measles virus are in fact part of the cells and fluids used for the alleged multiplication of the measles virus.

For this counterevidence, the "nucleic acid sequences" of the "measles virus" published on the public database "gene bank" of the USA or elsewhere are compared with the nucleic acid sequences of humans and animals, whose cells and substances (foetal serum for feeding the cells in the test tube) were and are used for the alleged "propagation" of the measles virus.

Evidence: Expert opinion, which is requested again

The results of the sequence comparisons made between the alleged genetic material (genome) of the alleged measles virus and the nucleic acids of humans, the animals used and their fluids (foetal serum), which must be repeated by an expert witness, are unambiguous: The combination of nucleic acid sequences that have been put together in a consensus-finding process lasting many years and that are supposed to represent the genome sequence of the measles virus in an arbitrary sequence are in reality typical nucleic acid sequences of humans, apes and foetal bovine serum.

Evidence: Expert opinion, which is requested again

This disproves the measles virus, since its genetic material is not unique and exogenous (coming from outside), but is made up of misinterpreted human and animal nucleic acid sequences. If control experiments had been conducted in infection research to extract nucleic acids from "unified" materials in the same way as in "infection experiments", which has never been done before, this fact would have been noticed. On the basis of the assumption that the publications presented are scientific, the expert asserts that the statements and conclusions made in them, although unscientific, are also scientific and usable. From this the expert witness concludes that the existence of the alleged measles virus should be proven by this work, although no work wants to prove or has proven this, but only the conclusions are drawn from the alleged existence of the virus.

And from this declaration the court concludes that the criteria for the award were fulfilled. The opposite results from the examination of the individual works, whereby the quotations are reproduced in German with page numbers, so that the court is given the opportunity to consult and check the corresponding English text even without the translation that is certainly necessary.

About the individual works

1.2.1 Enders/Peebles

This study was concerned with the multiplication of cytopathogenic substances from measles patients, not with proving the existence of a measles virus.

The claim to scientific character of this study is problematic already because obviously only 8 patients were included in the study (page 278 of the study). It is described that the disease, which was modified in individual cases, led to resistance to measles; attempts were made to cultivate the active ingredient of measles in human and monkey cells (page 277). The purpose was to describe the observations in a preliminary manner, with additional evidence of the relationship of these compounds to measles to be found in later studies (page 278). Of the 7 cases studied, 2 cases were still "under investigation" (page 279). It could not be said with certainty that the mass found was an intranuclear inclusion body, of the type characteristically associated with viral infections. Certain biological properties of the compound isolated from measles patients have been determined with certainty, others only in a preliminary and cautious manner (page 281). Also on page 283 nothing is said about the quality of the virus, but only what may need to be investigated in the future. Literally is explained: "The following facts seem to support the hypothesis that the viruses we have described are responsible for the disease".

The authors establish the technique by which, to this day, 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.

Cautiously preliminary results are presented in this study. A measles virus is assumed to exist. Thus, this publication only claims the existence of the measles virus and does not prove it, as demanded in the claim.

1.2.2 Bech/Magnus

These researchers state on page 75 of the publication that Enders and Peebles succeeded in isolating "virus-like" active ingredients. Cohen and others also succeeded in this. Other researchers report that they have succeeded in replicating the measles virus, while others have succeeded in connecting it to other human cancer cells (p. 75)

Here, too, the scientific nature of the work must be doubted, since only 13 patients were examined in total, and only a few of them reacted during the examination (page 76 below, page 80 above).

In the discussion of the results on pages 82-84 of the article it is shown how few patients were included in the study at all. Finally, it is noted that supplementary tests for the presence of measles antibodies were used as a criterion for the presence of this virus in the infested cultures (page 84).

Cytopathic changes in completely untreated cells, similar to those that a measles virus is thought to cause, have been observed, although these "probably" were caused by other virus-like agents (page 80). These changes, which are said to be specific to the measles virus (page 82), are microscopically identical to the changes attributed to the measles virus.

The experiments of these authors, without any control experiments, build on the technique of the authors of the 1st publication. 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 found 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 note that the method used by the authors of the 1st publication is not suitable for "isolating" the measles virus. The expert hides and suppresses this refutation and criticism of the 1st publication, although it is explicitly mentioned and presented in the party lecture.

In an animal experiment with two monkeys without control experiments, the animals are induced measles symptoms in a strange way: in the animal experiment, the fixed and shaved monkeys are injected with supposedly infected fluids through tubes into the lungs. These liquids consist of dead test tube cells, mixed with cytotoxic chemicals, so-called antibiotics, 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". These are referred to as "similar" to measles in an animal. From the "similar" of the authors, the expert makes "the same symptoms as with measles," thereby inadmissibly falsifying the authors' statement. Again, the existence of the measles virus is not scientifically proven, but only assumed and claimed to exist.

Here again, it is merely suspected and assumed that a virus is present, without being able to prove its actual existence. Thus, no measles virus is described in this study, as the claim demanded.

1.2.3 Nakai/Imagawa

In this study, too, the existence of the measles virus is only asserted and assumed, with the following already stated on page 187 of the report: "Although extensive information is available concerning the morphological structure of the measles virus and the thread-like nature of its enclosed body, knowledge of the reproduction of the virus is still unclear.

The authors speak of the allegedly known "morphological structure of the measles virus" without demonstrating and presenting it in a scientific manner, as demanded in the defendant's statement of claim. Already on the first page of this report, the authors point out that they merely observe the various stages of the multiplication of the measles virus with an electron microscope, whereby they only insinuate and assert the existence of the measles virus, but do not explain or prove it in detail. 

They refer to another study (Nishi) in which "virus-like parts of 100 to 150 nm in diameter were observed".

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. This is an unscientific procedure.

However, even if the authors had shown that identifiable independent particles occur in the cross sections, this would only prove the presence of typical cell transport particles, which are e.g. 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.

In order to claim that the cells used would produce measles virus, the authors pelletize membrane components, nucleic acids, proteins and digestive secretions of dead cells and their organelles by centrifugation. The images of the pellets clearly show their composition from cell fragments. A single incomplete image of a pellet is inadmissibly referred to by the authors 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 conclusions to be drawn, except that the work was carried out with the cells' own components.

The authors do not perform control experiments, but refer to normally treated cells not prepared for "infection" as controls. However, even these untreated cells are not observed and included in the experiments in the same way. As the reading of the publication shows, they are only observed in such literally "similar" and, moreover, in an undescribed and undocumented way, i.e. not at all, at least not in scientific methodology. The authors use the technique developed in the 1st publication to "multiply" and "isolate" "measles viruses" and ignore the warning statements of the authors at that time that the use of this technique is not proof of a measles virus. They also ignore the refutation of this technique by the authors of the 2nd publication.

Again, the existence of the measles virus is not scientifically proven, but only assumed and claimed to exist. Again, it is only suspected and assumed that a virus is present without being able to prove its actual existence. Thus, no measles virus is described in this study, as required by the claim, so that the conditions of the claim are not fulfilled.

1.2.4 Lund, Tyrrell and others (1984)

These researchers first examine the previous literature in the introduction and note that "these reports have not provided a very detailed morphological description of the nucleocapsid's architecture". They refer to the existing disputes regarding the molecular weight of what different authors each interpret as the genome of the measles virus (page 1535).

These preliminary remarks alone, with which earlier studies are evaluated, clearly show that the morphology of the alleged measles virus is not determined in the earlier work even in the opinion of these authors.

In addition in detail:

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

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 want to artificially multiply the genetic material of the claimed virus in order to be able to study it in artificially propagated form. Herein lies the scientific error that even in the measles virus, instead of a viral structure, normal components, here the nucleic acids of the cells used, are misinterpreted as components of the measles virus.

The authors first want to determine the length of the measles virus genome. However, instead of isolating nucleic acids from measles viruses using standard techniques to extract them and then determining their length and composition using standard techniques, they choose a combination of two unsuitable methods. Their source for molecules that they misinterpret as being part of the suspected measles virus is the technique developed in the 1st publication, whose limitations by these authors they ignore as much as 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 released without justification as viral nucleic acids of the measles virus. Like all those involved in this research, they are aware that cell fragments contain an extremely large number of different nucleic acids of all sizes. However, they do not determine these nucleic acids, which are selected according to size, with the appropriate standard methods, but rather with the unsuitable method of determining the length of nucleic acids under the electron microscope.

The authors state the length determined here 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.

Again, the existence of the measles virus is not scientifically proven, but only assumed and claimed to exist. Here again, it is only suspected and assumed that a virus is present, without being able to prove its actual existence. Thus, no measles virus is described in this study, as required by the pledge, so that the conditions of the pledge are not fulfilled.

>> Part 2 of the notice of appeal follows

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