Holocaust Survivor Mandate Case

Holocaust Survivor Mandate Case

Holocaust Survivor Jab Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of forcefully Injecting a Person with an alleged Medication Against their Will

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Dec 14 2022
  • Location: Stuttgart, Germany
  • Court: District Court of Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: 85 yr old Holocaust Survivor
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Holger Fischer
  • Defendant: Guardian
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge: Dr. L
  • Status: Under Appeal
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated Jan 19 2023

 

Background

A court in the German city of Stuttgart, in the state of Baden-Württemberg, sought to force COVID-19 vaccinations for an 85-year-old Jewish composer and a Holocaust survivor.  [1]….in order to institutionalise her “for her own good,” [2] 

The composer’s guardian had been trying to institutionalize his charge for years because she had once refused to take her medication. [2] 

Mascha Orel, co-founder of a holocaust survivors’ advocacy organization, comments that this suggests that there are financial interests at play, which also was observed by Report24. Orel published an open letter to the court, asking it to reconsider the order. [8]

Zhvanetskaya was born in 1937 in Vinnytsa, Ukraine, and moved to Germany in the late 1990s. She writes for various musical instruments, including contrabass, tuba, and trombone, and is a prolific composer, having authored two operas, more than twenty song cycles, symphonic works, and numerous sonatas. [8]
 
Issued December 2022, the order authorizes Zhvanetskaya’s guardian and medical support staff to force their way into her home, calling on police if needed, then lock her up in a psychiatric institution until December 2024 at the latest so that she can be administered two shots of the Covid-19 vaccine she has repeatedly insisted she does not want. [2]

According to the verdict of judge Dr. L. at the district court Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, the accommodation of the affected person in the closed ward of a psychiatric hospital or a closed ward of a care facility was approved by the duty caregiver until December 5, 2024 at the latest. At the same time, two vaccinations against Covid-19 (Corona) for basic immunization were approved as compulsory medical measures, in each case after internal examination of the ability to vaccinate, until January 16, 2023 at the latest, with the consent of the duty caregiver. [7]

The court claims that Zhvanetskaya has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses, including frontotemporal dementia, “change of character,” delusional disorder, “narcissistic self-image,” egocentrism, and logorrhea. She also allegedly suffers from morbid obesity and cardiac issues. [8]

The judgment further states that the forced vaccination against Covid-19 against the will of the person concerned in the context of the accommodation was necessary for the welfare of the person concerned in order to avert an imminent significant damage to her health. [7]

Inna Zhvanetskaya had not been convinced of the necessity of this medical measure, on the contrary. She strictly rejected the vaccination. Therefore, the judge found that the substantial health damage could not be averted by any other measure reasonable for the person concerned, since the expected benefit of the medical measure would substantially outweigh the expected impairment of the person concerned. [7]

The non-consensual treatment is said to be justified by the composer’s alleged mental and physical illnesses, which the order claims include narcissism, egomania, logorrhea, dementia, obesity, heart disease, and an obsession with music. [2]

“She is completely caught up in her compositions and so busy with music that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with her,” the document states. [2]

 

The outlet Report24 posted a copy of the court order, which authorizes the woman’s transfer to a psychiatric ward and administering inoculations. According to the translation of the court documents done by Children’s Health Defense, if Zhvanetskaya or her guardians refuse to cooperate, the authorities should use force to make them: [8]

If the competent guardianship authority cooperates in the process of bringing the person concerned to [the] accommodation specified, it may, if necessary, use force and call in the assistance of the police enforcement authorities. [8]

The home of the person concerned may be forcibly opened, entered and searched for the purpose of carrying out the procedure. [8]

The immediate effectiveness of the decision is ordered. [8]

 

Attorney Holger Fischer got the case rolling. He reported about it in his Telegram channel, contacted Masha Orel, a co-founder of “We for Humanity”, who in turn contacted Report24. First, Report24 asked the court for an opinion on Sunday, January 8, 2023. This came on Monday and stated dryly and factually on what basis the deprivation of liberty measures as well as the compulsory medical treatment were ordered and that a complaint was pending (that of attorney Fischer). [7]

In the channel of attorney Holger Fischer one could read: 

With me the year began among other things with a cry for help from Baden-Wuerttemberg: At the request of the duty caregiver, a guardianship court approved the two-year closed accommodation of an old lady, which means compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital, followed by admission to the protected area of a nursing home. Without first waiting for the success of the hospital treatment and then, for example, deciding the case anew by obtaining a new expert opinion regarding the need for further accommodation, a decision is immediately made here about the future of this not so dependent woman. [7]

This alone is not disproportionate. Besides, the court expressly approves the compulsory vaccination against Covid-19. [7]

While a forced medication with psychotropic drugs may only be ultima ratio, accordingly not already included in the decision, here a court decides that the affected person receives her Covid injection by force without hesitation, i.e. possibly still directly after her transfer by means of police coercion to the psychiatric hospital. (, with the use of force. ) [7]

All for the benefit of the person concerned in accordance with Section 1906 (1) (2) of the German Civil Code, according to which placement against the will of a person concerned is only permissible because “an examination of the state of health, a medical treatment or a medical intervention is necessary to avert imminent significant damage to health, the measure cannot be carried out without the placement of the person concerned, and the person concerned cannot recognize the necessity of the placement or act in accordance with this insight due to a mental illness or mental or psychological disability.” [7]

Since the order is immediately enforceable, she now waits daily to be removed from her home, transported to the psychiatric ward, and forcibly inoculated by the guardianship authority, which will assist the duty caregiver in carrying out the order, which in turn will call in the police to apply coercive measures. The person concerned was born before the beginning of the Second World War and is of Jewish origin. [7]

In the channel one finds also the first legal statement of him. Among other things one can read there: It is not yet certain how the fate of the old lady will continue, who is to be accommodated today. By the legal remedy of the complaint the decision of the guardianship court to the long-term accommodation and compulsory vaccination is contestable and was contested. The decision of the Appeals Board of the Regional Court is pending. [7]

 
Hiding & Video

Zhvanetskaya was reportedly rescued ahead of their visit by “friendly activists.” On January 10, 2023, 1n a video recorded from her hiding place, the composer told Report24 that “music is my life, and if they take away music from me then they take my life.” [2]

Zhvanetskaya’s acquaintances have countered that the video she made this week proves she is of sound mind and body. While admitting the composer was “introverted and autistic,” Mascha Orel, co-founder of a holocaust survivors’ advocacy organization, told German outlet TKP after speaking to Zhvanetskaya that this was “normal for a highly talented artist”  [2]

According to Report24, the “exclusive video shows: She is neither of unsound mind nor endangering herself or others. She’s just afraid for her life,” rendering the psychiatric admittance questionable. [1]

 
Public Reaction
  • Austrian professor Martin Haditsch has argued that forcibly vaccinating Zhvanetskaya would violate the Nuremberg Code, a set of laws prohibiting non-consensual medical experimentation that was adopted during the Nazi war crimes trials that followed World War II. [2]
  • Politicians and legal experts, including the ‘Alternative for Germany’ (AfD) party’s Martin Sich, have decried the court order against the composer as a violation of Germany’s Basic Law. [2]
  • German outlet TKP and the Society of Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy reported about lawyers, activists, and physicians defending Zhvanetskaya and criticizing the authorities for violating the Nuremberg Code, committing crimes against humanity by forcing an experimental drug on a person. [8]
 
  • Dr. med. Bodo Schiffmann also picked it up in his channel

“Holocaust survivor is to receive a compulsory medical measure twice tomorrow January 11, 2023: She is to be forcibly vaccinated against Covid-19 against her conscious decision. Furthermore, she is to be forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution. There she is to be vaccinated twice against COVID-19. The woman has consciously decided against this vaccination and is now being subjected to a compulsory medical measure as a Holocaust survivor in Germany.” and urges his readers to share the information widely in order to protect the lady. [7]

 
  • And Beate Bahner, specialized lawyer for medical law, commented:

This decision is a gigantic judicial scandal!!! Immediately executable! Tomorrow the composer is to be picked up. Then she will be vaccinated tomorrow at noon and, in addition, will probably be sedated with medication. I am stunned! A lawyer (Holger Fischer) has already filed a complaint. However, this does not prevent the judiciary and police from the immediate execution of this scandalous decision. This case must go to the public and to the press! Everyone must become active!“ [7]

  • The society of physicians and scientists for health, freedom and democracy e.V., MWGFD e.V., reports comprehensively and additionally publishes the letter of Mascha Orel, which is another Jewish woman living in Germany, born in Ukraine. In her open letter (engl. translation) she asked the court in Stuttgart to reconsider this decision. I spoke briefly with her to get more background information. [7]
 
  • Mascha Orel, co-founder of a humanitarian organization for holocaust survivors and their descendants, “We for Humanity,” reportedly spoke with the woman, and could not “confirm anything that was diagnosed in the report,” describing Zhvanetskaya as “vulnerable and frightened,” but having a “sharp mind.” Her true diagnosis is that she’s autistic, and “finds it difficult to interact with the outside world outside of her music,” said Orel, adding that “if it goes after that, one would have to isolate all autistic people.” [8]

What was your experience with Inna?

I talked to her on the phone for an hour. It is a madness. I wanted to see for myself what her condition is. She is vulnerable, frightened, and has been living in this state for about 2 years, as her duty caregiver has apparently tried to institutionalize her several times. The sword of Damocles of institutionalization has been hanging over her head for a long time. She has drawn an unequivocal comparison, “It’s like when Dad was at the front and Mom had to flee with me and my brother.” [7]

Why was psychiatry pushed forward?

Inna has a good soul around her, a woman who is there for her out of Christian charity. The woman has a sharp mind. She told me that about two months ago the nursing service was given the task of washing and dressing her. She could do that herself, she was always well groomed. Why was this done? Then probably the next instruction came from the caregiver that they had to control the acceptance of medication. These are two knock-out criteria. If you don’t take care of yourself and refuse to take medication, you are worthy of care. But both are just not true, according to Inna Zhvanetskaya’s confidante. Her father was a doctor and pharmacologist, and she pays close attention to the side effects and expiration dates of medications. Her father probably also taught her to weigh the benefits and risks, she has a very conscious approach to the subject and that is probably why she so strictly rejected vaccination. She probably takes the prescribed medication (e.g. because of water in the leg). [7]

Do you know how she feels about her situation?

She finds it difficult to interact with the outside world outside her music. Interaction with the outside world outside of her music is difficult for her. If that were the case, all autistic people would have to be isolated. It was a big effort for her to record the video, simply talking without a piano is not hers. But for her, it’s about her life. She talked and played for her life. That moved me to tears. That’s what Report24 called it: “Inna Zhvanetskaya plays for her life. And how she plays!” [7]

 
  • Children’s Health Defense stressed that “there is no medical or legal justification for compulsory vaccination,” and that the ruling is arbitrary. [8]
  • Martin Arieh Rudolph, chairman of the Jewish community in Bamberg, Bavaria sent a letter to the president of the Jewish community in Stuttgart, Barbara Traub, asking if she and the Jewish community could intervene to help Zhvanetskaya. [1]
 

“The facts seem unbelievable, because Germany has really learned nothing at all from history,” Report24 wrote. [4]

 
  • Michael Blume, the civil servant assigned to protect Jewish life in Baden-Württemberg state, including in its capital Stuttgart, is facing criticism on Twitter for failing to prioritize Zhvanetskaya’s case. There are calls for Blume to resign. [4]
  • Shai Glick, CEO of the Betsalmo—Human Rights in a Jewish Spirit NGO, told JNS,

“Anyone who acts against the people of Israel under the guise of anti-Zionism and anyone who supports the BDS movement, which applies a double standard solely towards the State of Israel, is himself antisemitic…. Mr. Blume should certainly not be in charge of the fight against antisemitism,” said Glick. [4]

 
Appeal

Zhvanetskaya’s lawyer, Holger Fischer, filed for an emergency appeal. On January 12, he posted on his Telegram channel that the Stuttgart regional court granted his application to suspend the compulsory vaccination until the decision on the appeal is made. Still, the composer might be forcefully institutionalized at any time, according to the lawyer. [8]

 “We for Humanity” also contacted the court with an appeal. On the same day, the employees of the care service succinctly informed that Ms. Zhvanetskaya would have to sign the work assignments finally, no more would be needed, as Ms. Zhvanetskaya would be picked up the next day. The supervisor would be there. [7]

 
Current Covid Regulations

Days before (the appeal Ruling) German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced an easing of one of the country’s last remaining pandemic restrictions. Lauterbach said Friday that as of February 2, there will no longer be a mask mandate for long-distance trains and buses. [3]

Masks will still be required in doctor’s offices, with masks and negative COVID-19 tests both required for hospitals and nursing homes. [3]

 
The Nuremberg Code

The Nuremberg Code ( from Wikipedia) is an ethical guideline for preparing and conducting medical, psychological and other experiments on humans. It has been part of the medical ethical principles in medical training since its formulation in the verdict of the Nuremberg Medical Trial (1946/1947), similar to the Geneva Vow. It states that in medical experiments on humans [7]

“the voluntary consent of the subject (is) absolutely necessary. This means that the person concerned must be capable, in the legal sense, of giving consent; that he must be able, uninfluenced by force, fraud, trickery, coercion, overreaching, or any other form of persuasion or coercion, to exercise his judgment; that he must have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the field in question in its details to be able to make an understanding and informed decision.” The Nuremberg Code was prompted by the crimes against humanity committed in the name of medical research during the National Socialist era, in particular “criminal medical experiments” and forced sterilizations. [7]

 

Significance

Austrian professor Martin Haditsch has argued that forcibly vaccinating Zhvanetskaya would violate the Nuremberg Code, a set of laws prohibiting non-consensual medical experimentation that was adopted during the Nazi war crimes trials that followed World War II. [6]

Covid Critic Robin Monotti tweeted

“This is opening the floodgates potentially to mass incarceration of people who refuse to be injected with experimental products” [5]

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

The Plaintiff argues that she is of sound mind and understands the risks of the experimental injections

 

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the Plaintiff is mentally ill and unable to make decisions for herself

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

First Decision

On December 14 2022 a court order had authorized the forcible removal of Zhvanetskaya from her home in Stuttgart on Wednesday in order to institutionalise her “for her own good,” [2]

Second Decision

On January 12 2023 A regional court has overruled the decision. [1]

 

Aftermath

Soviet-born composer Inna Zhvanetskaya is reportedly in hiding from German authorities after they attempted to have the 85-year-old Holocaust survivor committed to a mental institution and inoculated against her will with a Covid-19 shot, German outlet Report24 said on Thursday. [2]

 

Media


German court orders the forced Injection of Holocaust survivor -Jan 18 2023

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Holocaust Survivor Pleads for her Life Link -Jan 10 2023

source: DeepThought


Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav speech at Nuremberg 75 -Aug 20 2022

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Dr. Bodo Schiffmann Reports on the Forced Jab of Holocaust Survivor -Jan 11 2022

source: Odysee / 種 Datenarche


MUST WATCH: C19 Death Data Analysis for Every Country pre & post mRNA -Jan 12 2022

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Rebel News Confronts Pfizer CEO at World Economic Forum -Jan 19 2023

source: Odysee / Towards The Light


Germany Vaccination Mortality Data -Dec 12 2022

source: Odysee / shortXXvids


Back to All Cases

 

Measles Isolation Case

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

 

Back to All Cases

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)

  1. 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.
  2. 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

related

 

Media


The Measles Myth

source: Dr Sam Bailey


Measles in Court

source: The Trueman Show


Report on the Measles Trial

source: ….


Dr Lanka on the Measles trial

source: ….

 

References

  1. The Virus Misconception
  2. Masern Prozess
  3. OpenJur
  4. WHO Press Release
  5. Der Masern-Virus-Prozess
  6. Justiz in Baden-Württemberg
  7. Measles virus? There is no proof of a measles virus says court!
  8. On The Track Of Enders Experiments (translated & edited by northerntracey & John Blaid)
  9. 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


Back to All Cases