Dr. Barbara Kahler zu den aktuellen Gerichtsentscheidungen zur Covid-19-Impfpflicht bei Soldaten und zur endgültigen Ablehnung der Verfassungsbeschwerde zur Masern-/MMR-Impfpflicht.
Mit einer umfassenden, leicht nachvollziehbaren und trotzdem zutreffenden Nachlese zum Masernvirus-Prozeß von 2014-2016, bei der Big Pharma den Aufklärer seit 1992, Dr. Stefan Lanka, trotz großer Mühe, Hetzartikel-Orchestrierung der Medien, besonders der örtlichen katholischen Presse und teuren Anwälten, nicht zum Verlieren bringen konnte, weil er sich tapfer behauptete.
Daß er mit einem “Sieg zweiter Klasse” andererseits auch nicht den vollen Sieg errungen hat, indem das Masernvirus offiziell als nichtexistent bezeichnet wird (sondern nur indirekt, weil keine valide Arbeit vorgelegt oder zumindest benannt werden konnte), hat die Weichen für die derzeitigen Fehlurteile gestellt.
Solange die Virusbeweisfrage vor Gericht nicht gestellt wird und die Richter nicht gezwungen sind, über diese Anträge zu entscheiden, gehen die P(l)andemiespiele immer weiter.
Sehr verdienstvoll von Dr. Barbara Kahler, daß sie diesen Bogen zurück bis zum Masernvirus-Prozeß spannt und damit auch für die vielen Neueinsteiger, die seit Coronoia dazugekommen sind, aufzeigt, wie spannend und wichtig dieser “halbe Sieg” bzw. Verweigerung des volles Sieges damals war.
Manuskript als pdf: BK 65 Viruslüge – Korruption in Wissenschaft, Politik und Justiz
28.02.2023, Next Level: Der Masernvirus-Prozess: Was wirklich geschah
4-teilige Video-Dokumentation (hinter Bezahlschranke)
Teil 1: Die Hintergründe (wie kam es zum Prozess)
Teil 2: Prozessauftakt, Gutachten & Stellungnahmen
Teil 3: Prozess & Urteil der 1. Instanz
Teil 4: Sieg für Dr. Lanka – Prozess & Urteil 2. Instanz und BGH
English section on the Measles Virus Trial 2014-2016 in Germany
13 Mar 2015, AP: Vaccination skeptic ordered to pay up for proof that measles is a virus
BERLIN — A German court has ruled that a prominent anti-vaccination advocate must pay a doctor 100,000 euros ($105,720) in prize money he had promised to anyone who could prove measles is a virus.
Biologist Stefan Lanka made the offer on his website in 2011, but rejected the six scientific studies Dr. David Bardens provided as proof.
Lanka argued during the Ravensburg district court hearing that measles “is a psychosomatic illness,” the local Suedkurier newspaper reported.
But court spokesman Matthias Geiser told The Associated Press on Friday the judges disagreed after hearing more than three hours of arguments and expert testimony.
“The court had no doubt about the existence of the measles virus,” it said in a statement.
Lanka told the Suedkurier he would appeal, but Geiser said he had not yet.
16 Feb 2016: Hans Tolzin: Stefan Lanka – Measles Trial
Short interviews by the well-known editor-in-chief of the vaccination-critical impf-report magazine, Hans Tolzin, with the plaintiff Dr. med. David Bardens, measles virus challenger Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Lanka and his lawyer Stefan Seehofer. English subs from the original video Hans Tolzin: Masern-Virus vor Gericht
JANUARY 27, 2017: Biologist Proves Measles Isn’t A Virus, Wins Supreme Court Case Against Doctor
by DAVE MIHALOVIC
In a recent ruling, judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed that the measles virus does not exist. Furthermore, there is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of the virus in any scientific literature. This raises the question of what was actually injected into millions over the past few decades.
Not a single scientist, immunologist, infectious disease specialist or medical doctor has ever been able to establish a scientific foundation, not only for the vaccination of measles but any vaccination for infants, pregnant women, the elderly and even many adult subgroups.
The fact that many vaccines are ineffective is becoming increasingly apparent. Merck was slapped with two separate class action lawsuits contending they lied about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in their combination MMR shot, and fabricated efficacy studies to maintain the illusion for the past two decades that the vaccine is highly protective.
Studies such as one published in the Human and Experimental Toxicology journal found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates. The study, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller who has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.
MMR Vaccine
In the United States, children typically receive their mumps vaccination as part of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises children to receive their first dose between 12 and 18 months, and their second between the ages of 4 and 6.
Evidence has been published in the medical literature that vaccinated persons can get measles because either they do not respond to the vaccine or the vaccine’s efficacy wanes over time and vaccinated mothers do not transfer long lasting maternal antibodies to their infants to protect them in the first few months of life.
Brian Hooker’s published paper, is a comprehensive analysis of the CDC’s own data from 2003 revealing a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine.
Brian Hooker’s research in the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal 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.
Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson 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 remarked “we’ve missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re 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.
Measles Virus Does Not Exist
German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka initially offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could provide scientific evidence that the measles virus existed. He had initially been ordered to pay up in court after Doctor David Bardens attempted to claim the prize after providing the biologist with a study that had been published in a medical journal. At that time, a Judge in the regional court in Ravensburg, South Germany, ruled in the favour of Dr. Bardens in a controversial decision claiming the criteria for evidence had been met.
The First Civil Senate of the BGH confirmed a judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) on in February 2016. The sum of 100,000 euros which was offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus did have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.
Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove 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: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.
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.
The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.
The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: 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.
Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission 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.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.
In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.
Sources:
lrbw.juris.de
anonhq.com
wissenschafftplus.de
21.09.2018: Still no proof for the measles virus
by Feli Popescu
Zitat: “~~~Warning: very long article, but worth reading~~~
The bacteriologist Podbielski explained in his expertise (which I have read) that NONE of those papers prove the existence of the virus “by itself“, but (verbal acrobatics) that “in their togetherness and together with other papers which were not presented as proof at the trial, they prove the existence of the virus.“
Really now?
Well, I wouldn’t call this science, since even the judges in Stuttgart said when they gave the verdict in Lanka’s favour:
QUOTE:
“Dr Lanka explained from the start that none of the 6 papers proves the existence of the measles virus. The idea of a ‘combination’ of those papers appeared for the first time when the court-appointed expert claimed it. The expert claimed »In this paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper neither etc., but in the sum and the totality of all the papers (including those which were not presented by the claimant) there is the proof.«.
Here we, the judges, have another problem. Even if we were to consider prof Podbielski’s expertise, we do not know which aspects of which paper(s) he meant as a ‘combination’, to consider that the virus has been proven to exist. The expert’s wording is vague, unclear, which is exactly what can be avoided when it is asked for one single paper.“
END OF QUOTE
I have written about this extensively on my blog, I also have the original audio recording of the verdict at the trial, which I transcribed on my blog.
We can go on analysing the 6 papers one by one, I am in possession of an expertise from a reputed German microbiologist and virologist who debunked each and every one of the 6 papers
This expertise was used at the trial in Stuttgart and I’m guessing it was one of the reasons why the judges gave the final verdict in Lanka’s favour.
So you see, the real woo comes from those who are trying to inject children with cell particles of uncertain origin, claiming that it is a measles “virus”, while never having been able to prove the existence of such a virus. And by proving the existence of the virus I mean the classic scientific method, so easy to use: purification by sucrose density gradient centrifugation.
This should include the detailed description of the following steps: isolation, purification, photos before and after isolation and biochemistry of all the molecular components.
And please do not forget the obligatory negative control experiments, which are a must for every honest scientific endeavour.
If you have just ONE paper on the measles virus which meets these scientific criteria, bring it on. Thanks.
By the way, we can write in Romanian too
Or if you prefer, we can write in German too
Anywoo [sic], the “virus” still has never been demonstrated to exist.”
06.04.2020: Dr Stefan Lanka Measles Virus On Trial
In the five-year “measles virus trial” the Higher Regional Court in Stuttgart on February 16. 2016 sensationally ruled that all allegations concerning the measles infection, measles vaccination, and the measles virus have no scientific basis. At the end of Dr. Lanka’s appeal hearing, the presiding judge Oleschkewitz said to the plaintiff Dr. Bardens that the court with three judges had decided 3:0 against him.
This is a novelty in German legal history. Never before has a court publicly stated whether it decided 3:0, 0:3, 2:1 or 1:2. The emotions of the judge are not surprising when one reads up on the subject and becomes aware of the dimensions of the medical malpractice.
From a biological point of view, it is not surprising that the presiding judge lost his voice when reading out the verdict. He went “in recess.”
You can find the important judgment of the Higher Regional Court in Stuttgart, AZ .: 12 U 63/15 from 16.02.2016 here.
On December 1. 2016, the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe the sensational ruling of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. You can find the Federal Court’s decision here.
It has been German case law since December 1, 2016, that even the first publication in the measles virus trial, the publication of the Nobel Prize winner John Franklin Enders and his colleagues from 1954, does not constitute proof of the alleged existence of the suspected “measles virus.”
What makes this fact so significant is that this publication is the sole and exclusive basis of all other approximately 30,000 “scientific” publications on the topic of “measles virus” and “infection” with measles.
Since it is now case law that this publication contains no proof of the alleged existence of the assumed measles virus, it is clear that all 30,000 specialist publications on these topics are without foundation.
28.10.2021, Northern Tracey: All About That Measles Trial
I was asked to help with the translation of another Stefan Lanka article which I think you will all find very interesting. After I posted my last article ‘Virology is Dead’ on Bastyon I got the usual obtuse comment of it being ONLY about money.
This is the ridiculous excuse Barden was giving out and all the ‘skeptics’ bragged about. I always laugh at their use of the word ‘skeptic’ as they are about as sceptical as a two year old child and this comment is just as deep. What he says tho is not lying, originally it was about the prize money but that was exactly how to get this fraud really looked at, scrutinized, by the law. It might not have gone exactly as to plan but the desired effect was finally arrived at. Anyone who can’t see this trial was not JUST about money is naive or plain stupid. This was a moment in medical history.
Go Virus Go
The Bundesgerichtshof lets the belief in viruses perish
Final finished article made pretty and professional by John Blaid.
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/goVIRUSgo.pdf
08.09.2022: MEASLES VIRUS PUT TO THE TEST: Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court
by Caroline Markolin, Ph.D.
Here is a brief overview of the court proceedings:
On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000
to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows:
“The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles
virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the
measles virus is determined.”
In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the
subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.
The six publications are:
1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients
with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol
Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top
Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb;
3(2): 187–97.
5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and
the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.
6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles
Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.
Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.
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, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On December 01, 2016, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.
Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.
According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”).
Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these.
The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.
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.”
Lanka – Dismantling the Virus Theory – Translation of Viren entwirren
Lanka – Viren entwirren – German Original
This Article as pdf: Caroline Markolin – MEASLES VIRUS PUT TO THE TEST – Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court
29.1.2024, John Blaid: An audio translation from Dr Stefan Lanka’s measles trial at Stuttgart
Here I will provide an English translation from an audio recording that was made during the measles trial in Stuttgart with Dr. Stefan Lanka, where one can read what the judge said, which is a bit different from what was written down in their ruling.
This audio recording was made by Feli Popescu, who was present at the trial, and my translation was made from her Romanian translation of the audio recording, which can be found here.
This is what the judge said, where Popescu also highlighted some parts to better see and understand the importance of the various statements:
“Here we have a public offer of reward (Auslobung) under § 657. The decisive point in which we, the court in Stuttgart, contradict the decision of the court in Ravensburg, is the following: the text of the offer CLEARLY requires a single paper in which the existence of the virus and its diameter is demonstrated.
A public offer of reward is a declaration of intent according to §§ 133, 157 and must be understood as any reasonable person would understand it [!!]. And the starting point of a public offer of reward is the EXACT TEXT. And here in the text it clearly says: “The reward will be paid if ONE scientific publication is provided IN WHICH the existence of the measles virus is demonstrated AND IN WHICH among other things the diameter of this virus is determined”.
On the basis of Prof. Podbielski’s expertise, the Ravensburg court considered that “OK, nowadays it is no longer customary to publish complete monographs, in which everything (!!!) is proven, but one works on individual points and the combination must be enough (!!!)”. This seems at first sight acceptable, but this point of view has a flaw, and this flaw was for us decisive in giving the verdict: WHERE do we draw the line and WHERE do we stop with the number of publications you are allowed to provide, from the combination of which it can be concluded that there would be a measles virus and how big is it?
You, Mr Bardens, have provided SIX publications. You could have sent 60… or 600… and said, “Look here, in all these papers you’ll find proof.” For an extreme example, let’s say you sent him 100 papers. It’s easy to understand that the man didn’t ask for this, i.e., to go through 100 papers and get a bullet point from one, a bullet point from another, nothing from another, but then a bullet point from another… and eventually conclude that there’s a measles virus.
It is clear from the TEXT of the offer that this was not what was intended, and any reasonable person who had thought carefully about what the author of the offer wanted would have come to the same conclusion. Of course, at first glance, SIX works does not seem like a large number. But it is an arbitrarily chosen number. The author has given a precise task: ONE WORK. If we allow SIX papers, what about OPT? What about TEN? You can’t draw a line, and this is decisive, the author only wanted one work and therefore he alone decides how and for what he offered to pay.
Dr. Lanka stated from the beginning that the 6 papers do not prove the existence of the rubella virus. The idea of a “combination” only emerged when the expert formulated it. The expert said, “In this paper the virus is not demonstrated, in this paper the virus is not demonstrated, in this paper the virus is not demonstrated, BUT in sum, in the totality of all the papers (including those not provided by the petitioner), there is evidence”.
Here we already have another problem. Even if we try to take Prof. Podbielski’s expertise into account, we do not know which aspects of which papers he referred to as a “combination”, in order to consider that the existence of the virus has been proven. The expert’s expression is vague and unclear, and it is precisely this vagueness that can be avoided when only ONE WORK is required.
It does not appear from the text of the offer that Dr. Lanka wanted a work by the Robert Koch Institute, nor does it appear that this work should have been published after 1999 or 2002. We did not consider these requests. We, the court, would also accept reviews, or rather, A review, IF – based on X previous papers that did not reach that conclusion, that review would reach the compelling conclusion: here we have a rubella virus and this is its size, based on X and Y. BUT WE DON’T HAVE IT HERE.
For these reasons, the court in Stuttgart is of the opinion that the petitioner Dr. Bardens’ claim has absolutely no chance. The petitioner’s claim is dismissed. The costs of the proceedings for both courts will be paid in full by the petitioner Dr. Bardens.”
“As such, the court in Stuttgart made it CLEAR that there is NO evidence of the existence of the measles virus in ANY of the papers submitted. NONE!”
– Feli Popescu
List of English Sources from and of Dr. Stefan Lanka
English section on Dr. Lanka’s Website WissenschafftPlus [Science creates Plus]:
HIV; REALITY OR ARTEFACT?
By Stefan Lanka, in: Continuum, April/May 1995
HIV PICTURES; WHAT THEY REALLY SHOW (1996)
By Stefan Lanka
AIDS: DEATH BY PRESCRIPTION
By Heinrich Kremer, Stefan Lanka & Alfred Hässig, in: Continuum, July/Aug. 1996
RETHINKING HIV: Collective Fallacy
Reply to Duesberg I
By Stefan Lanka, in: Continuum, Sept./Oct. 1996
LANKA REPLIES TO DUESBERG (II) (1997)
15 YEARS OF AIDS
The continuous failure in the prevention and treatment of AIDS is rooted in the misinterpretation of an inflammatory auto immune process as a lethal, viral venereal disease
By A. Hässig, H. Kremer, S. Lanka, W-X Liang, K. Stampfli, May 1998
INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA – Challenging BOTH Mainstream and Alternative AIDS Views
by Mark Gabrish Conlan, Zenger’s News Magazine, December 1998
Interview with Stefan Lanka 27.10.2005 on “bird flu” and some related subjects
Translation by RM of an article in German in the online newspaper FAKTuell
Dr Stefan Lanka: Pandemic Theater – History of the Infection Theory (Part 1) (Video)
Dr. Lanka Lanka: Dismantling The virus Theory. The “measles virus” as an example
Why should we doubt the existence of viruses? What are viruses and what are they not?
How are viruses being scientifically demonstrated to exist, in: in: WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS – Das Magazin 6/2015
ON THE TRACK OF ENDERS EXPERIMENTS – cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not specific for measles virus
Author: Head of an independent laboratory in Germany, in: WISSENSCHAFFTPLUS – Das Magazin 4/2017
Measles-Control-Experiment-told-by-the-head-of-an-independent-laboratory-in-Germany
Die Sicht der Virusgläubigen auf den Masernvirus-Prozeß
29.09.2015: Bullshit Quiz: Werden Sie noch heute Rechtspopulist!
Zitat: Im Bullshit Quiz gibt es 150 Zitate von 30 Populisten.
Pro Spieldurchlauf kommt aber nur ein Teil der Populisten mit jeweils einem von fünf Zitaten zu Wort. So gibt es auch bei mehrmaligem Spielen immer etwas Neues zu entdecken. Hier ein kleiner Vorgeschmack: […]
„Medizin [wird] in unserer Kultur nachweislich seit tausend Jahren missbraucht, um Angst zu erzeugen und Menschen zu vernichten.“
Komm.: Dr. Lanka mit Spock-Ohren? Ein verstecktes Kompliment für sein logisches Denken? Faszinierend!