Natural Immunity Case
Natural Immunity Case
Re: the Legality of the RKI reducing covid recovered status from 6 to 3 months
Facts of the Case
- Dates: Feb 4, 2022
- Location: Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, Germany
- Court: Administrative Court
- Case #: Az. 3 B 4/22
- Plaintiff:
- Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
- Defendant:
- Trial Type:
- Judge:
- Status: decided
- Verdict: for the Plaintiff
*updated Feb 9, 2022
Background
The plaintiff challenged the updated decision by the RKI as announced on its website on Jan 14, 2022 to change the status of “covid recovered” or “Genesen” from 6 months to 3 months.
This change was made suddenly and without warning. Also it was not decided on by any legislative decision.
Germany is the only country in which people after a corona infection are only considered to have recovered 90 days. Throughout the EU, the six months are still used, in Switzerland even twelve. [2]
Since Feb 1, 2022, vaccinated people in Austria lose their vaccination status after six months, unless they extend it with the booster vaccination. [4]
In Germany, individuals are considered fully vaccinated if the last vaccine dose with an EU-approved Covid 19 vaccine was at least 14 days ago. Depending on the vaccine, one or two vaccine doses have been necessary to date to obtain complete vaccination protection. [4]
New RKI guideline: Who is considered recovered?
Convalescents (Recovered or in German: “Genesen) are persons whose Corona infection, proven by PCR test, did not occur more than three months ago. In January, the RKI had shortened the convalescent status from six to three months. After that, a booster vaccination is recommended. This is according to the institute’s new guidelines effective January 15. In addition, those who have been vaccinated once and subsequently contracted corona – before the second dose of vaccine was administered – are included in the group of recovered persons. In this case, too, the infection must have occurred less than three months previously. [4]
Most recently, it became known that the deadline of six months continues to apply in the Bundestag. The reason is the currently valid general decree, which among other things regulates the access to buildings of the Bundestag and so far assumes a convalescent status of six months. Specifically affected by this are the participants in the plenary and the committees, a spokesman reported. Meanwhile, this is causing criticism. [4]
Future of the “2G” rule
Most experts agree that in the long run, immunization after the second vaccination is incomplete (does not last). The numerous reported vaccine breakthroughs based on declining immune protection speak a similar language (confirms this). As early as last May 2021, Thomas Mertens, chairman of the Standing Commission on Vaccination (Stiko), announced in an interview with Funke [4]Mediengruppe, “The virus will not leave us again. The current Corona vaccinations will therefore not be the last.”
Meanwhile, the “2G-plus rule” prevails in many areas of public life. That means only vaccinated and recovered people who also have a negative Corona test are allowed into events or indoor areas. If people are already boostered, they do not need to be additionally tested. [4]
EU Covid Pass
The EU Commission has decided that the validity period of the Corona vaccination certificate should be reduced to nine months from February 1, 2022. This will affect people who have not yet received a booster vaccination. They will then only be considered fully vaccinated for a period of nine months after basic immunization. There is currently no expiration date for booster vaccination. For the time being, the vaccination status is valid without restriction. [4]
What some do not know: The digital vaccination certificate – for example in the CovPass app – already has an expiration date that occurs exactly twelve months after the second vaccination dose. According to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), however, this is a technical expiration date, which does not mean that there is no longer any vaccination protection. According to the institute, those affected then only need a new digital proof. [4]
Science continues to show Natural Immunity is better than medically “induced” immunity
On Feb 3, 2022, John’s Hopkins University scientists published a paper that showed for 99% of the participants (who all had covid) Natural Immunity lasted at least 650 days and has not vanished.
Significance
This case challenges the authority of a non-elected agency to legislate rules for the populace and also questions its science
Plaintiff’s Argument
This change by the RKI violates the plaintiff’s fundamental rights.
It also makes daily life and work difficult (which again, is also a violation of fundamental rights)
Defendant’s Argument
…More information is needed…
Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases
…More information is needed…
Decision
The Osnabrück Administrative Court considers the shortening of the corona recovery status to be unconstitutional. It finds fault with the announcement on the RKI website and also speaks of a “high relevance to fundamental rights”. [3]
The administrative court in Osnabrück, declared the reduction from nine to six months invalid. [1]
“It was obvious that the exclusion of the individual from participation in social, cultural and economic life had a high fundamental rights relevance for the individual, in particular with regard to the general freedom of action under Article 2 (1) of the Basic Law, the physical integrity of Article 2 (2) of the Basic Law from the point of view of mental health and to the freedom to exercise one’s profession under Article 12 (1) of the Basic Law – as well as to other fundamental rights positions.” [5]
The judgment -apparently- does not apply to the general public, but only to the applicant. [1] who is entitled to the convalescent certificate for a period of 6 months [5]. It said the administrative court should not rule for itself that the standard should not be applied in principle. Other convalescents who did not want to accept their abbreviated proof would therefore have to go to court themselves. [3]
The court decided that he (the plaintiff) should now receive a six-month comprehensive proof of recovery from his district. [1]
The applicant is entitled to the issue of a convalescent certificate for the period from February 11 to July 13, 2022, i.e. for the period resulting from Section 2 No. 5 SchAusnahmV as amended on May 8, 2021 [6]
Instead of the ordinance that has been in effect since mid-January, the county should apply the version from May of last year in the case, the court explained. [3]
Further progress at the federal level remains to be seen. [1] The judgement can still be appealed to the Higher Administrative Court in Lüneburg within two weeks. [3]
the judges referred to a conflict with the Basic Law: the reduction of the convalescence status had been put into effect by the RKI. [1]
But there are doubts about this approach: the judges explained that there was no legal basis for delegating this decision to the RKI. [1]
the legislator is, as it were, sub-authorizing the authority, which is not covered by the ordinance authorization. With this regulation, the federal government, as the issuer of the ordinance, has passed on its own tasks to the RKI without having been authorized to do so. This procedure violates the provisions of Article 80 (1) sentence 4 of the Basic Law. [6]
The reference to a constantly changing RKI website was intransparent and also vague. In addition, the RKI had not sufficiently scientifically investigated whether it had been proven that the protection of convalescents (recovered) against infection ends after 90 days. [3]
the dynamic reference to the website of the RKI violates the requirement of legislative act. A simple reference to an Internet page does not satisfy the requirements of Article 82 (1) of the Basic Law, in particular due to the fact that the content of this page can change virtually every second. [6]
The court also pointed out
In contrast (to the RKI’s 3 listed sources that it used to justify the change), there are a large number of renowned voices from science and practice that consider a shortening of this status to three months to be incomprehensible and superfluous
(see, by way of example, https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Politik/BAeK-Praesident-Reinhardt-unterstuetzt-Verkuerzung-des-Genesenenstatus-426411.html; https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/immun-status-gilt-nur-noch-drei-monate-daten-rechtfertigen-keine-verkuerzung-experten-zerlegen-verkuerzte-genesenen-regel_id_44524051.html; https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/coronavirus-carsten-watzl-kritisiert-neue-dauer-des-genesenenstatus-a-16b8846c-09cc-4283-9850-85188b9680c8; https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/verkuerzung-des-genesenenstatus-100.html, each accessed February 2, 2022).
For example, virologist Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck, a member of the German government’s expert council, points out that people who have recovered have just as good protection against re-infection as those who have been vaccinated, so unequal treatment is therefore not appropriate
(cf. https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article236476819/Markus-Lanz-Koennen-die-Pandemie-nicht-wegimpfen-warnt-Hendrik-Streeck.html, accessed February 3, 2022
The costs of the proceedings shall be borne 2/3 by the applicant and 1/3 by the defendant.The amount in dispute is set at €15,000. [6]
Aftermath
A Bundestag report had also had strong doubts about the decision-making power of the (RKI) institute – and also cited the German constitution against the procedure. [1]
It seems possible that the traffic light will now be readjusted. [1]
The conference of health ministers called on Monday to put the decision on the convalescent statute back in the hands of politicians. [1]
Justice Minister Marco Buschmann (FDP) supported the demand, as reported by the Augsburger Allgemeine. [1]
the virologist Hendrik Streeck said: [1]
The RKI decision to shorten the (immunity) convalescent status to three months “to put it mildly, annoyed him,” Streeck told Focus
The virologist criticized that the reason given was “science”.
He was “not aware of any study that could justify this decision”.
Quite the opposite: according to Streeck’s knowledge, all studies indicate that those who have recovered are just as well or even better protected than those who have been vaccinated.
the FDP is now distancing itself from RKI boss Lothar Wieler. [1]
The designated FDP General Secretary Bijan Djir-Sarai told Spiegel [1]
“I have great respect for the achievements of the RKI boss Lothar Wieler in the past two years during the pandemic.” He added: “Mr. Wieler can trust the FDP but due to this recent misconduct, which unfortunately is not an isolated case, we can no longer be sure.”
He further said: “The RKI cannot casually determine the shortening of the recovery period with the stroke of a pen and without any announcement.
When asked about Wieler’s future at the head of the RKI, the FDP politician said: “It is up to the Federal Minister of Health to decide on the personnel at the top of his sub-authorities.”
Even if the verdict is not yet valid nationwide, one thing is clear: Lauterbach was at least steering in legally tricky waters. [4]
The fact that Corona decisions are stopped by a court speaks in principle for the separation of powers in Germany, but is always to be understood as a reprimand for those responsible…And Lauterbach appears as such when the RKI, a federal authority subordinate to the Ministry of Health, makes far-reaching decisions for millions of people. [4]
Further Research
Court Documents:
In the news:
…More information is needed…
Media
References
- After the verdict on the recovered status: Streeck also calculates with the RKI decision – “no study known”
- Judicial defeat for Lauterbach and Wieler: The corona debate must not only be conducted by the RKI
- Gericht: Kürzerer Genesenenstatus ist verfassungswidrig
- Geimpft oder genesen: Was gilt ab Februar?
- Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück hält Verkürzung des Genesenenstatus auf 90 Tage für verfassungswidrig
- Rechtsprechung der niedersächsischen Justiz (Court Ruling)
Keyword
2G, breakthrough, Bundestag, genesen, lauterbach, Natural Immunity, Osnabrück, Recovered, Regel, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Streeck, virologist, Wieler
Measles Isolation Case
Measles Isolation Case
Re: the Dispute of the outcome from a competition that challenged its participants to prove the detection of the measles virus
Facts of the Case
- Dates: Feb 16, 2016
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Court: Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart
- Case #: OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 16.2.2016, 12 U 63/15
- Plaintiff: Mr. David Bardens
- Defendant: Dr. Stefan J Lanka, PhD
- Trial Type: Civil
- Judge: Karl-Heinz Oleschkewitz
- Status: Decided
- Verdict: for the Defendant
*updated: Jan 21 2022
Background
Stefan Lanka is the biologist/virologist who detected what is arguably the first virus proven to exist and was one of the early critics of the AIDS-HIV dogma. [7]
In 2011, a former Federal Minister of Justice contacted Dr. Stefan Lanka to ask for scientific data that may help stop the legalization of mandatory vaccination for measles. [1]. Thereafter, in consultation with a leading senior state prosecutor, a plan to offer prize money for the proof of the “measles virus” was formed. In doing so, the concerned parties had realized that it would be impossible to challenge the existence of the “measles virus” directly in the court room. They anticipated the possibility that a civil trial may result from the “measles virus bet”, which could be used to legally challenge the science behind the claims that the ‘measles virus’ exists, and that vaccines for measles were safe and effective. (see pg 9 of “the virus misconception part 1) (1)
On November 24, 2011, the defendant Dr. Lanka offered a prize money with the header announcing
*****************
The measles virus
EUR 100,000!
WANTED
The Diameter
*****************
The context for the bet is detailed here and here but also briefly summarized below: (2) (3)
The text that followed this announcement not only provided the specifications that a contender needed to follow, but also provided a detailed context for the bet. A summary of these is provided below. For details, see (2) (3)
- Consequent to the swine flu debacle of 2009, vaccine sales experienced a swift downfall, with the German market experiencing a 29% reduction in revenue for influenza vaccines in 2011 compared to an year before.
- In 2011, the German government and the WHO drummed up fearful scenarios of a measles pandemic and its severe consequences as briefed below.
- Prior to the bet, brochures distributed throughout Germany gruesomely painted the measles virus as lethal and capable of inducing severe brain damage. On the basis of these threats, vaccinations were strongly advocated for the entire family.
- Soon thereafter, WHO announced 26,000 confirmed cases of measles in 53 countries since Jan 1, 2011, with 14,000 being in France. This raised the spectre of a measles pandemic invading directly from France. (4)
- In November 2011, the government proclaimed Paul Ehlrich Institute as having demonstrated measles virus transmission through the trachea, and showcased how attenuated measles viruses were even being used in cancer therapy.
- Then followed the claim that 164,000 people died of measles every year out of the 55 million people infected. The frenzy was exacerbated with the announcement that measles cases had doubled in Berlin with the disease taking a severe course in many.
- Soon came a statement from the Berlin health senate: “The current situation calls for a review of vaccine hesitancy especially among the enlightened”
The Rules & the importance of the Diameter of the Measles Virus
Against this background, Dr. Lanka explained why the diameter of the virus was a key requirement to win the bet. Within the framework of the Basic Law and the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), the Robert Koch Institute had a responsibility to conduct independent research on the causes of measles. If indeed German researchers worked with the measles virus on behalf of the Federal government for vaccine research and for cancer research, this research must surely be documented, and as a primary attribute of the measles virus, its diameter must be known and recorded.
On November 24th, 2011 Dr. Stefan Lanka offered a prize of 100,000 Euros to any person who could present a scientific publication in which the existence of the measles virus is claimed, proven, and in which its diameter is determined. He emphasized that the money will not be paid if the diameter is estimated from a model representation or from a computer graphic.
Further, Dr. Lanka encouraged people to address questions about the measles virus including the determination of its diameter with the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and recommended the citizens to report any failures in their response to the Federal Ministry of Health.
The Challenger
The plaintiff, Mr. David Bardens, a young medical student had first contacted Dr. Lanka the defendant on January 16, 2012 to confirm the bet and its conditions. Within a period of 15 days, he presented a collection of 6 (six) papers which he claimed contained the scientific proof that the defendant sought through his bet.
However, being the scientist who first isolated and biochemically characterized the first viral structure from algae and being thoroughly familiar with the scientific literature on the ‘measles virus’, Dr. Lanka rejected this claim. The first paper in the collection was written by John Enders, the ‘discoverer’ of the ‘measles virus’, together with Peebles in 1954. In this paper, Enders reported that cells grown in a culture died after the introduction of the saliva or blood of a measles patient.
Concluding his report, Enders stated that such a death of cells could be evidence either of the presence and proliferation of the suspected measles virus, or of unknown factors including unknown viruses in the monkey kidney cells used in the culture. Finally, Enders admitted that his laboratory experiments may have no relevance to real measles in humans.
The First Trial – April 2014 to March 2015
Lower regional court of Ravensburg (Landgerichts Ravensburg vom 12.03.2015 – 4 O 346/13)
Legal arbitration was sought by David Bardens in the Ravensburg Regional Court in 2014. Although, Bardens did not strictly adhere to the conditions of the bet, the court accepted his case. The presiding judge Matthias Schneider appointed Prof. Andreas Podbielski to deliver an expert opinion on the scientific matter under question — whether the papers presented by Bardens met the conditions of the bet laid out by the defendant.
The expert who was commissioned by the court, a University professor from Rostock, explicitly confirmed in the first ruling of the County Court of Ravensburg, that none of the 6 presented publications provided any proof of existence of the virus. [7]
On March 12, 2015, judge M. Schneider made a ‘chair judgement’ based on the written opinion of Prof. Podbielski, just after this expert was questioned in the court. In this manner, Judge Schneider prevented the full course of civil proceedings, in particular counter claims by the defendant. In this ‘chair judgement’, the judge ordered the defendant to pay the prize money of Euro 100,000 to the plaintiff.
The second Trial – December 2016
Higher regional court of Stuttgart (OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 16.2.2016, 12 U 63/15)
Following the Ravensburg decision Dr. Lanka appealed this decision at the Higher regional court of Stuttgart as outlined below. (6)
Significance
Scientific significance:
In Science, the concept of a virus is ill defined. Around the birth of germ theory,
- it used to mean a poison associated with disease.
- Later, it was believed to be a protein that could self-replicate.
- After nucleic acids were identified as the genetic material, the virus was believed to a nucleic acid molecule surrounded by a protein coat.
In the scientific literature, the existence of a virus is inferred on the basis of effects alleged to be caused by viruses. One such alleged effect was reported by Enders and Peebles in 1954 and forms the basis of the majority of virus discoveries.
This effect is the death of cells in a tissue culture after a bodily fluid obtained from a sick patient is introduced into the culture. However, to date this is not the only experimental condition that is changed in such setups. Along with the introduction of the patient sample, the setup is changed with respect to concentration of antibiotics and nutrient solutions. In connection with the measles experiments of Enders and Peebles, Dr. Lanka has scientifically demonstrated that the death of cells in these experiments result from the experimental setup and not because of the introduction of bodily fluids from sick patients.
Legal significance:
This case raises questions about
- the process of scientific facts in virology,
- the fragility of the ‘expert judgement’ of scientific experts,
- the legality of the measles vaccination carried out in Germany, and
- whether the Robert Koch Institute is justified in not carrying out independent research on the causes of measles.
Plaintiff’s Argument
Mr. David Bardens, the plaintiff, claimed that a collection of six papers contains scientific proof of the existence of the measles virus and that the diameter of the virus is determined in these works. (3) (5)
Defendant’s Argument
The defendant argued that the scientific papers submitted by the plaintiff did not carry out control experiments to rule out what Bardens was claiming as proof of the measles virus was not from cellular debris or byproducts of its putrefaction, or of vesicles used by the cell to transport material in and out of the cell (see Nobel Prize in Medicine/physiology for 2013). In addition, a single paper in which the diameter of the virus was reported along with that of the discovery of the virus was required to win the bet. (5)
Decision
“Biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka does not have to pay a 100,000 Euro reward to the Saxony based doctor David Bardens after all. Bardens had tried to prove the existence of the measles virus by submitting 6 publications. Lanka had offered the reward to anyone, who presented a publication, in which the virus was proven to exist and in which the diameter of the virus was determined. the District court of Stuttgart rules in an appeal of Feb, 16th, 2016 that the demanded proof was not presented. [7]
Also the expert who was commissioned by the court, a University professor from Rostock, explicitly confirmed in the first ruling of the County Court of Ravensburg, that none of the 6 presented publications provided any proof of existence of the virus. [7]
Further, in explanation of the decision, the court stated, that the person offering the reward also decides the conditions the bid must fulfill.” [7]
The judges discovered several procedural violations. For example, the primary evidence in the case was the six papers claimed by Bardens to contain scientific proof on the measles virus. This evidence was not collected by the Ravensburg court before it made its judgement. (5) (6)
Secondly, they found inconsistencies in the opinion of the scientific expert appointed by the Ravensburg court. One of the interesting facts is that the scientific expert did not have any scientific publications in the field of virology at the time he made his expert opinion. Further, they found that the expert had either not read all the 6 papers or had deliberately misinterpreted them. (5) (6)
Most importantly, the Stuttgart court could not find any logical backing to the assertion that the six papers together or individually did not fulfill the criteria of the award — proof of the measles virus along with a determination of its primary physical attribute, the diameter of the virus (in other words, an electron micrograph of the virus particle along with a biochemical analysis of the constituent molecules of the same virus particle). (5) (6)
The higher regional court at Stuttgart overturned the decision of the Ravensburg court and decided that the six papers submitted by Bardens did not individually or collectively prove the existence of the measles virus along with an estimate of its diameter.
(Note: this collection includes the seminal paper on the ‘discovery of the measles virus’ by Enders JF and Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954, 86(2): 277–286.) (5) (6)
As a result, the plaintiff Barden’s claims about winning the bet were dismissed. In the course of the judgement several interesting facts came into light. Among these, the ones listed in paragraph 30 of the judgement are most relevant to the judgement: (6)
- The six publications submitted (by Bardens) did not fulfill the criteria of the award, neither individually nor as a whole.
- The Ravensburg court did not (collect and) examine the papers under dispute (claimed by Bardens to contain unquivocal proof of the measles virus; neither did Bardens submit them to the court).
- The Ravensburg court accepted arbitrary statements by the expert Prof. Podbielski who had interpreted them contrary to the statements and intentions of the authors of the 6 scientific papers mentioned here.
- The statement received from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) claimed that the measles virus contains ribosomes. However, ribosomes are only found in living organisms and by the expert statements of Prof. Podbielski refuted that the materials claimed by RKI is a virus.
- The Ravensburg judgement wrongly stated Prof. Podbielski as having said that the scientists who wrote the six papers had carried out control experiments (the control experiments serve to rule out the possibility that cellular debris were misinterpreted as the alleged measles virus the scientists were seeking).
The scientist ordered by the County Court of Ravensburg of the university of Rostock stated clearly, that none of the six presented publications alone provided irrefutable proof. [7]
only an overview of all these publications could be “regarded“ as “evidence“ was the verdict, given by the judges [7]
The judge went on to say, that a court could not decide upon such scientific questions. This must happen within the scientific community. [7]
Aftermath
After losing the case at Stuttgart, Bardens tried in vain to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).
His case was rejected by BGH on December 1, 2016. (5)
Changing Measles Definition?
- “In the first edition of ‘Vaccine’, the worlds most prestigious compendium of vaccination experts, 1988, it stated; the measles virus is spherical in shape and approximately 120 to 250 nanometers in size. [7]
- In the latest edition in 2013, the measles virus is not spherical any more, but can be ‘various shapes’. [7]
- In addition, according to the scientist commissioned by the court, Professor Podbielski from the University of Rostock, the virus can vary in size drastically between 50 and 1000 nanometers. “ [7]
- and lastly, another article by Hans Tolzin points out the lack of controls in the presented publications. [7]
Does the trial prove or disprove the existence of the virus?
Lanka’s critics, adamantly pointed out that Lanka was only acquitted because of a small formality in the interpretation of the competition, not because the virus is not proven. however they don’t say the virus IS proven, either.
Hans Tolzin of Impfreport (Vaccination report), a leading website on independent vaccination education, wrote: after 130 years of virology, a basic discussion was born, that was overdue. Thanks is due to Dr Lanka , regardless of whether one believes in a measles virus or not, science can only benefit from this and so can our children, who are affected by the vaccination programs through which they claim they will eradicate the measles virus.”
Lack of control Experiments
Lanka, in advance of the appeal trial, produced several expert assessments which pointed out, very clearly, the complete lack of control experiments in each one of the six publications presented as evidence. Such control experiments are claimed to be indispensable to a definitive outcome of an experiment. [7]
For instance, according to Lanka, the described experiments do not rule out, that components of the cell cultures used as evidence could be erroneously claimed to be the sought virus. (ie: the claimed virus could be artifacts of the methods and ingredients used in the experiment) [7]
According to a paper by professor Harald Walach from Frankfurt at the Oder, cited by Lanka, this is only possible using control experiments i.e. “systematic negative controls“ [7]
2017 Controlled Measles Experiment
Independent scientists published in the magazine Wissenschaftsplus (April 2017) a repeat of the original 1954 virus experiment from Enders & Peebles together with a control (which was not done originally) [8]
they write: We, on behalf of Dr. Lanka, checked whether agents other than the alleged measles virus can lead to cell fusion with resulting cell death (= syncytia formation) in cell cultures that look exactly like the one in the standardized protocol based on the publication by Enders & Peebles from 1954 which has become globally recognized for the detection of the measles virus. For this purpose, work was carried out strictly in accordance with the protocol of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the detection of measles infection in cell cultures. [8]
The results reported were: [8]
Depending on the non-viral and non-infectious substances added, changes in cell morphology could be observed at different times, which since 1954 is always equated with the “isolation” of the “measles virus”. Particularly after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin/streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficiency conditions (1% FCS), changes in the cell morphology were found that were microscopically identical to the syncytia formation described as the measles virus (Illustration 1).The studies have clearly shown that syncytia formation is not specific for measles infection. Thus, the forgotten observations of both Enders & Peebles as well as Bech & von Magnus have confirmed that Enders & Peebles and successors proving the existence of a virus with this technique was only assumption
Mandatory Measles Vaccination in Germany
On March 1, 2020, the Measles Protection Act, which amends several laws, entered into force in Germany. The Act makes measles protection mandatory for children one year or older who attend daycare, school, or other community facilities, and for persons working in those facilities or in medical facilities. Furthermore, measles vaccinations will be mandatory for persons living or working in refugee and asylum-seeker accommodations. Noncompliance will result in fines, and unvaccinated children and persons will be barred from the respective facilities. [9]
The Debate Continues
The Covid Crisis has made this debate a hot topic. Many new voices have started to question the status quo. US Dr Kaufman has become a leading champion questioning the evidence of the virus science.
The consequences of virus’s not existing are enormous. It would mean that the covid pandemic was non-existent. It would mean the collapse of a mega empire of pharmaceutical drugs. It would mean that billions of people were given and in many cases forced to take drugs that were both experimental and unnecessary.
Further Research
- Read the original Case Complaint here
- Stefan Lanka’s website
- Stefan Lanka’s papers on the virus misconception p1
- Stefan Lanka’s papers on the virus misconception p2
related
Media
References
- The Virus Misconception
- Masern Prozess
- OpenJur
- WHO Press Release
- Der Masern-Virus-Prozess
- Justiz in Baden-Württemberg
- Measles virus? There is no proof of a measles virus says court!
- On The Track Of Enders Experiments (translated & edited by northerntracey & John Blaid)
- Germany: New Act Makes Measles Vaccinations Mandatory
Keyword
Bet, brain damage, Competition, control experiments, David Bardens, Definition, Enders, Existence, germany, Infection Protection Act, Lanka, Measles, Nobel Prize, Pandemic, Paul Ehlrich Institute, Peebles, Podbielski, Prize, Ravensburg, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Stuttgart, Virus