- Nate Serg
TRIALS AND REVELATIONS
Updated: Apr 10, 2021
The expert, Prof. Podbielski, refuted not only the alleged existence of the "measles virus", but also the supposedly "scientific" evidence of all "disease-causing viruses" (see below). The OLG Stuttgart decided to mention these facts, but not to evaluate and not to exploit them. The court hoped no one would read the verdict.
It is since December 1st, 2016, the day of the confirmation of the measles virus trial ruling by the Higher Regional Court Stuttgart by the BGH, German case law, that the first publication in the measles virus trial, the publication of the Nobel Prize winner, John Franklin Enders and his Colleague from 1954, does not provide evidence of the alleged existence of the suspected "measles virus"....
The sole and sole basis of all virology since 1953 is the assumption published by Prof. Enders in 1954 that the death of cells in the reagent could be evidence of the action of viruses or that of unknown factors. Only with the Nobel Prize at the end of 1954 did these self-refuting speculations become a scientific fact: "It is viruses when cells die." 15th Since he did not carry out any control tests, Enders and all of his successors have not noticed until today that starvation and poisoning are the cause of death of cells in the test tube and not suspected viruses."
Even up to this day, there is still no scientific evidence that vaccines are effective against the so-called “viruses”. The reason why this claim has no solid scientific basis is that there are no proofs itself that these biological agents what they call “viruses” cause diseases in the first place. In 2001, a German molecular biologist named Stefan Lanka and his colleague named Karl Krafeld wrote a book entitled “Impfen – Völkermord im dritten Jahrtausend?”
As one of the validations for this claim, in 2017 the German Federal Supreme Court has made a final decision agreeing that there wasn’t enough evidence to support that the “measles virus” exists.
ttps://wplus-verlag.ch/de_DE/p/buy/wissenschafftplus-ausgabe-4-2017?fbclid=IwAR0Qz9hq5uj-VzHCQ6zcx63tgqzgS4mCcfWyNC0r9TPKgR4HoiZf4lKopGk
In this court trial, Dr. Lanka even offered to pay 100,000 Euro for someone who can prove the opposite.
Here is the short chronology of the event:
“On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up.
Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.
On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, (NOT ONE OF THE 6) as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement.
Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.”
During the “measles virus trial”, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) named Dr. Annette Mankertz admitted an important fact that “may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism”. There were five experts who presented the results of the scientific studies appointed the higher court.
These five experts, one named Prof. Dr. Andreas Podbielski,
“consistently found that none of the six publications which were introduced to the trial contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus”.
This was confirmed independently by two recognized German laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, proving that
“the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today”:
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant “scientific paper” on the subject of “measles virus.” According to the decision, the claim that ordinary components of cells are part of the suspected measles virus is a misinterpretation.
This attempt to determine pathogenic viruses is a common mistake in the field of virology today according to Dr. Lanka. He also suggested that:
“Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.
Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.”
According also to Dr. Lanka:
“With the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.”
“For almost one year we have been asking authorities, politicians and medical institutes after the scientific evidence for the existence of such viruses that are said to cause disease and therefore require “immunization”. After almost one year we have not received even one concrete answer which provides evidence for the existence of those “vaccination viruses”.
The conclusion is inevitable that our children are still vaccinated on the basis of scientific standards of the 18th and 19th century. In the 19th century Robert Koch demanded in his generally accepted postulates evidence of the virus in order to prove infection; at Koch´s time this evidence couldn´t be achieved directly by visualization and characterization of the viruses, because adequate technology wasn´t available at that time. Methods of modern medicine have profoundly changed over the past 60 years, in particular by the invention of the electron microscope. And still all these viruses we get immunized against have never been re-examined using this technology?”
In the United States and many parts of the world, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine is given to children between 12 to 18 months and then followed when they reach the ages 4 to 6. This is strongly being “pushed” by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with the financial backing of course by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
However in the CDC’s own data from 2003,
Brian Hooker’s
research in the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal revealed a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine.
This study also “provides the most recent epidemiological evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis”.
Meanwhile, a CDC whistleblower named Dr. William Thompson also confirmed that “the CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up.”
He also stated that they’ve “missed ten years of research” because the CDC is so paralyzed then by “anything related to autism” and that the CDC “is not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated.”
He “alleges criminal wrongdoing by his supervisors, and he expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data”.
___
THIS LINK IS TO THE PAPERS FROM THE INVESITIGATION DURRING THE TRIAL
Https://wplus-verlag.ch/de_DE/p/buy/wissenschafftplus-ausgabe-4-2017?fbclid=IwAR32IhaUzZVvkCNENA_uNKPZ7N6IPTWOFnC14n1IASEQdeIyCU2ECZEgkp8
___
References:
GOVIRUSGO - MORE ON THE TRIAL
_______________________________________________________________
“All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations … All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”
” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”
“These control experiment have never been carried out by the official “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”
How the Virus Misconception Has Roots in 1858 and Became Entrenched in 1954
Lanka traces back the development of the virus misconception to 1858 and to the ‘cell theory’ of Rudolf Virchow, who proposed a theory that all disease and all life originates from a single cell, which is somehow hijacked by a virus that weakens it and propagates itself. Lanka points out 2 problems with this:
In other words, the studied cells and tissues die with or without the presence of a virus in exactly the same way; therefore, the virus cannot be the cause of the morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, this exactly what many health experts have stated, namely that there are only 2 causes of disease: deficiency and toxicity. For instance, Charlotte Gerson (who took over running the Gerson Clinic from her brilliant father Max) said this about disease and cancer. Removing cells or tissue from the body and thus cutting them off from their energy/nutrient supply will quickly lead to deficiency; injecting antibiotics into the mixture is toxicity; thus there is no solid proof a virus is causing disease when there is already deficiency and toxicity present. This is the key point of the virus misconception.
“The cell theory was only originated because Rudolf Virchow suppressed crucial discoveries about tissues. The findings and insights with respect to the structure, function and central importance of tissues in the creation of life, which were already known in 1858, comprehensively refute the cell theory and the subsequently derived genetic, immune and cancer therapies.
“The infection theories were only established as a global dogma through the concrete policies and eugenics of the Third Reich. Before 1933, scientists dared to contradict this theory; after 1933, these critical scientists were silenced.”
By “infection theories” Lanka means germ theory, the prevailing theory of modern Western Medicine. Lanka then describes how a paradigm shift in the perception of the virus occurred during 1952-1954:
“Until 1952, a virus was defined as a pathogenic poison in the form of a protein, which as an enzyme caused damage in an unknown manner, which could cause disease and be transmissible. After 1953, the year in which the alleged DNA in the form [of] an alleged alpha helix was publicly announced, the idea of a virus became a malignant genotype wrapped in proteins. Thus, a paradigm shift took place between 1952 and 1954 regarding the image of a virus.”
He talks about how theory become dogma in the Church of Mainstream Science (aka Scientism):
“This completely unscientific approach originated in June 1954, when an unscientific and refutable speculative article was published, according to which the death of tissue in a test tube was considered … possible evidence for the presence of a virus. Six months later, on 10 December 1954, the main author of this opinion was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine for another equally speculative theory. The speculation from June 1954 was then raised to a scientific fact and became a dogma which has never been challenged to this date. Since June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus.”
Returning to Koch’s Postulates: No Isolation, No Purification
Not 1 Disease, Not 1 Cause, today’s mainstream scientists are skipping the all important 2nd step of Koch’s postulates: the isolation and purification of the virus. This isn’t something you can just gloss over or forget to do, like accidentally forgetting your umbrella on a rainy day and getting a bit wet. This is the absolutely quintessential part of determining if there is a new virus and if it causing causing disease
If you can’t isolate it, you have FAILED to prove anything, because the budding offshoot you think is an invading virus could easily be a exosome or particle being produced by the body itself. This is why all the COVID propaganda has conveniently glossed over the fact that there are no electron microscope images of SARS-CoV-2, since the electron microscope is an extremely important tool in the 1st step of Koch’s postulates, the identification.
Lanka continues:
“… a virus has never been isolated according to the meaning of the word isolation, and it has never been photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique structure. The electron micrographs of the alleged viruses show in reality quite normal cellular particles from dying tissues and cells, and most photos show only a computer model (CGI – computer generated images).”
So What Does All This Have to Do with COVID?
So to bring this back to the current plandemic, all of the same assumptions and lack of evidence are in play when it comes to COVID:
“Individual molecules are extracted from the particles of dead tissue and cells, they are misinterpreted to be parts of a virus and are theoretically put together into a virus model … The consensus-finding process for the measles “virus”, in which the participants debated in order to determine what belonged to the virus and what didn’t, lasted for decades. With the apparently new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, meanwhile renamed), this consensus-finding process lasts only a few mouse clicks.
With only a few mouse clicks as well, a program can create any virus by putting together molecules of short parts of nucleic acids from dead tissue and cells with a determined biochemical composition, thus arranging them as desired into a longer genotype which is then declared to be the complete genome of the new virus … in this process of theoretical construction of the “viral DNA”, those sequences that don’t fit are “smoothed out” and missing ones are added. Thus, a DNA sequence is invented which doesn’t exist in reality and which was never discovered and scientifically demonstrated as a whole.”
So basically, mainstream Chinese scientists who work under the same theory as mainstream Western scientists invented a new theoretical model for SARS-CoV-2, and proclaimed a novel coronavirus, but all without the electron micrographs to actually back it up.
__________________________________________________________________
ENDERS 1954 MEASLES PAPER:
John Franklin Enders 1954 paper "Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles" is considered the proof of the discovery of a Measles "virus." This was presented as the "isolation" of Measles and served the basis for which the vaccine was based upon. Reading the paper and Enders conclusions, however, tells a completely different story than the isolation of a "virus."
"Materials and methods. Collection of specimens. Throat washings, venous blood and feces were obtained from 7 patients as early as possible after a clinical diagnosis of measles was established. In 5 instances the time at which specimens were collected in relation to the onset of exanthem is given in the case histories described below or in Table I. When capable, PATIENTS WERE ASKED TO GARGLE WITH 10-15 ML OF STERILE NEUTRALIZED FAT-FREE MILK. Certain specimens from the throats of younger children were OBTAINED BY COTTON SWAB PREVIOUSLY MOISTENED IN MILK. After swabbing the throat THE SWAB WAS IMMERSED IN 2 ML OF MILK. PENICILLIN, 100 u/ml, AND STREPTOMYCIN, 50 mg/ml. WERE ADDED TO ALL THROAT SPECIMENS which were then centrifuged at 5450 rpm for about one hour. SUPERNATANT FLUID AND SEDIMENT RESUSPENDED IN A SMALL VOLUME OF MILK were used as separate inocula in different experiments in amounts varying from 0.5 ml to 3.0 ml. About 10 ml of blood immediately after withdrawal were placed in tubes containing 2 ml of 0.05% SOLUTION OF HEPARIN. As inocula for tissue cultures amounts varying from 0.5 ml to 2.0 m of the whole blood were employed. AFTER ADDITION OF ANTIBIOTICS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE 10% FECAL SUSPENSIONS WERE PREPARED BY GRINDING
THE MATERIAL IN BOVINE AMNIOTIC FLUID MEDIUM. The suspensions were then centrifuged at 5450 rpm for about one hour and the supernatant fluids used as inocula, in amounts varying from 0.1 ml to 3 ml. All specimens were refrigerated in water and ice or maintained in the cold at about 5°C from the time of collection until they were added to the cultures. The maximum time that lapsed between collection of specimens and inoculation was 35 hours."
Right off the bat you can see that the throat swabs were immediately placed in milk or were taken by cotton swabs doused with milk. Antibiotics were then added to these milk swab samples. Blood samples were placed in tubes containing heparin which is toxic to cells. Fecal samples were grinded up and added to bovine amniotic fluid serum. The addition of various chemicals/compounds to samples from sick patients is the exact opposite of isolation.
"Tissue culture technics. In the initial isolation attempts roller tube cultures ( 1 1 12) of human kidney, human embryonic lung, human embryonic intestine, human uterus and rhesus monkey testis were employed. Subsequent passages of the agents isolated were later attempted in human kidney, human embryonic skin and muscle, human foreskin, human uterus, rhesus monkey kidney and embryonic chick tissue. Stationary cultures prepared according to the technic of Youngner( 13) WITH TRYPSINIZED HUMAN AND RHESUS MONKEY KIDNEY WERE LATER EMPLOYED FOR ISOLATION OF AGENTS and their passage. THE CULTURE MEDIUM CONSISTED
OF BOVINE AMNIOTIC FLUID (go%), BEEF EMBRYO EXTRACT (50/0), HORSE SERUM (5%), ANTIBIOTICS, AND PHENOL RED as an indicator of cell metabolism ( 1 2 ). SOYBEAN TRYPSIN INHIBITOR WAS ADDED TO THIS MEDIUM UNLESS IT WAS USED FOR
THE CULTIVATION OF HUMAN AND MONKEYS KIDNEY ( 11). Fluids were usually changed at intervals of 4-5 days. For histological examination the cell growth after fixation in 10% formalin was embedded in collodion, dehy-drated and stained with hematoxylin and eosin ."
You can see again that various chemicals/compounds were used during the "isolation" process. Trypsinized human or monkey kidneys cells were used. Trypsin has been shown to have negative effects on the kidneys and can be full of contaminants. Bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, antibiotics, phenol red, and in some cases soybean trypsin inhibitors, were added to the culture. The addition of various cell-altering chemicals, compounds, animal DNA, etc is the exact opposite of isolation.
"In each of the 3 cultures that were inoculated cytopathic changes were observed on the 7th day. Since these changes presented a CHARACTERISTIC APPEARANCE NOT HERETOFORE ASSOCIATED DEFINITELY WITH A VIRUS they have provided the means for the further investigation of this agent as well as others that have been recently isolated."
Cytopathic changes were observed after culturing for 7 days. Any of the toxic compounds alone which were added to the sample to culture it could have caused these changes. There is no reason to assume a "virus" caused the cell death.
"In cultures consisting largely of monkey renal epithelial cells as prepared by Youngner’s modification of Dulbecco’s technic (13) cytopathic changes have been regularly observed which resemble closely those produced by these agents in human renal cells as seen in both fresh and stained preparations. These effects followed the addition of blood or throat washings from cases of measles as well as infected tissue culture fluids derived from previous passages. Monkey kidney cultures may, therefore, be applied to the study of these agents in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. IN SO DOING, HOWEVER, IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT CYTOPATHIC EFFECTS WHICH SUPERFICIALLY RESEMBLE THOSE RESULTING FROM INFECTION BY THE MEASLES AGENTS MAY POSSIBLY BE INDUCED BY OTHER VIRAL AGENTS PRESENT IN THE MONKEY KIDNEY TISSUE (cf. last paragraph under G) OR BY UNKNOWN FACTORS."
Here Enders states that the cytopathic changes (CPE) seen in Monkey kidney cells resembles that of human kidney cells meaning that these cells can be used going forward as they regularly are today. However, even he states that the CPE observed may not be due to a Measles "virus" but by either other "viruses" or unknown factors.
"Other agents isolated during this study.
TWO AGENTS HAVE BEEN ISOLATED WHILE THE PRESENT WORK WAS IN PROGRESS THAT APPEAR UNRELATED TO THOSE WE HAVE JUST DESCRIBED. The first was recovered from the throat washings of a typical case of measles occurring in the boys' school. Its wide cytopathogenic range, the character of the cytopathic changes induced and the fact that its infectivity for tissue cultures was neutralized by herpes simplex immune rabbit serum served to define its nature. A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. THE CYTOPATHIC CHANGES IT INDUCED IN THE UNSTAINED PREPARATIONS COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED WITH CONFIDENCE FROM THE VIRUSES ISOLATED FROM MEASLES. But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. OBVIOUSLY THE POSSIBILITY OF ENCOUNTERING SUCH AGENTS IN STUDIES WITH MEASLES SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY KEPT IN MIND."
Here it shows other agents were "isolated" with measles and that they could not distinguish any difference between the CPE they claim was caused by Measles with one of the other agents. This is just further evidence that these were not purified samples and that they assume that whatever "virus" they believe is present must adhere to certain CPE changes even though there are other agents which produce the same effect.
"Discussion. Of the numerous experiments that have been reported in the past describing the successful isolation of the etiologic agent of measles ONLY THOSE IN WHICH MONKEYS WERE EMPLOYED AS THE EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL have been consistently confirmed by other workers. GREAT CAUTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE EXERCISED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF ANY NEW CLAIMS THAT THE VIRUS HAS BEEN PROPAGATED IN OTHER HOSTS OR SYSTEMS. Accordingly, THE RESULTS THAT ARE SUMMARIZED HERE MUST BE SUBJECTED TO THE MOST CRITICAL ANALYSIS."
Enders seems to admit that Measles was only successfully isolated through monkeys in the past. Therefore, isolation of a "virus" from other hosts, such as HUMANS, should be treated with great caution and must undergo critical analysis. He undermines the credibility of his own research and findings in his own paper.
"THE PATHOLOGIC CHANGES INDUCED BY THE AGENTS IN EPITHELIAL CELLS IN TISSUE CULTURE RESEMBLE, AT LEAST SUPERFICIALLY, THOSE FOUND IN
CERTAIN TISSUES DURING THE ACUTE STAGES OF MEASLES. While there is NO GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE FACTORS IN VIVO ARE THE SAME AS THOSE which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances IN VITRO, the appearance of these phenomena in cultured cells is consistent with the properties that a priori MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE VIRUS OF MEASLES."
According to Enders, there is no grounds for stating what happens IN VITRO (in a lab) has any relation to what happens IN VIVO (within a living organism) thus once again throwing shade on his entire research and findings.
"Although we have thus already obtained
CONSIDERABLE INDIRECT EVIDENCE supporting the etiologic role of this group of agents in measles, 2 EXPERIMENTS ESSENTIAL IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS RELATIONSHIP REMAIN TO BE CARRIED OUT. These will consist in the production of measles in the monkey and in man with tissue culture materials after a number of passages in vitro sufficient to eliminate any virus introduced in the original inoculum. THE RECOVERY OF THE VIRUS FROM THE EXPERIMENTAL DISEASE IN THESE HOSTS SHOULD THEN BE ACCOMPLISHED."
Enders admits that they only collected INDIRECT evidence supporting a role in the agents he studied yet further experiments needed to happen in order to prove this such as actually seeing if the agent can produce Measles in a human or monkey and whether the Measles "virus" can be recovered from them. Thus this paper is not proof of a Measles "virus" at all. If that wasn't enough to make this point absolutely clear, Enders conclusion definitely will:
"Conclusion. The findings just summarized support the PRESUMPTION THAT THIS GROUP OF AGENTS IS COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VIRAL SPECIES RESPONSIBLE FOR MEASLES."
The PRESUMPTION that the agents he worked with were Measles "virus."
In summary:
-there was no "isolation" of any "virus," just the usual toxic cell culture crap.
-the samples were not purified and other agents other than the presumed Measles "virus" were detected.
-Enders doubted the validity of his own work and stated more evidence was needed to establish a DIRECT link between the agent he PRESUMED was a Measles "virus" and the disease itself.
This is the seminal Measles work and it does not offer any proof of the existence of a Measles "virus." Everything built upon this fraudulent paper is therefore fraudulent as well, which is the very nature of "Virology" and "Science" today.
THIS JUST IN! THIS JUST! IN THIS JUST IN!
IS THE EXPERIMENTS ORDERD BY THE COURT - THAT PROVED MEASLES AS IT COMES TO A VIRAL CAUSE IS A FALACY -
ttps://wplus-verlag.ch/de_DE/p/buy/wissenschafftplus-ausgabe-4-2017?fbclid=IwAR0Qz9hq5uj-VzHCQ6zcx63tgqzgS4mCcfWyNC0r9TPKgR4HoiZf4lKopGk
