A 2 Part Mega Thread🧵
THE DAY VIROLOGY DIED
16/02/2016 🪦
Part 1: Virus On Trial
THE DAY VIROLOGY DIED
16/02/2016 🪦
Part 1: Virus On Trial
24/11/2011, German Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka offered a prize of €100k for a scientific publication in which the alleged existence of the "Measles Virus" is proven
He did this to raise awareness to what he believed was fraudulent science behind mandatory Measles Vaccinations.
He did this to raise awareness to what he believed was fraudulent science behind mandatory Measles Vaccinations.
This Challenge was undertaken by Dr. David Bardens who submitted 6 papers he believed proved the existence of the Measles Virus and took it to Ravensburg Regional Court on non payment.
An Ad Hoc judgment was made 12/03/15 by Judge Schneider before any rebuttal from Dr.Lanka.
An Ad Hoc judgment was made 12/03/15 by Judge Schneider before any rebuttal from Dr.Lanka.
This Ad Hoc judgment ordered Lanka to pay the prize money to Bardens and is practically the ONLY news you hear in the mainstream..
Lanka appealed the decision and it was taken to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court where they would let Lanka make a scientific rebuttal.
Lanka appealed the decision and it was taken to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court where they would let Lanka make a scientific rebuttal.
The Court appointed expert Professor Podbielski to present the case from a scientific standpoint on behalf of Bardens. He was a Bacteriologist with no practicle or published competence in the field of virology.
His cross examination is recorded in minutes at Ravensburg Court
His cross examination is recorded in minutes at Ravensburg Court
It is obviously written in German and I have used a translation app, so I will present the pictures of the translations then I will put the link to the document at the end for any German speakers to verify.
The words of importance are unambiguous but just for the record.
The words of importance are unambiguous but just for the record.
They focus much of the examination on one specific paper by John Enders in 1954, the so called Isolation of the Measles virus which was coincidently the first time the technique of Cell Culture Isolation was used and is still used for EVERY Isolation of a virus in Virology.
In cross examination of this paper Podbielski makes 2 huge admissions. 1. This Paper has "No Negative Control"
2. It DOES NOT fulfill Koch's Postulates, which are scientific criteria laid out for proof of existence of a pathogen.
2. It DOES NOT fulfill Koch's Postulates, which are scientific criteria laid out for proof of existence of a pathogen.
Podbielski tries to fob off the lack of control in the paper as being an "old paper" on which to build. This is a massive problem as you will see soon.
He also tries to glaze over the the fact that it doesn't fulfill Koch's Postulates and in a stunning admission none will.
He also tries to glaze over the the fact that it doesn't fulfill Koch's Postulates and in a stunning admission none will.
He also lays the foundations for what is used by those who wish to lie about this trial ; that "they *could* satisfy kochs Postulates but it would have to be very very long paper 🙄.This is a made up fluff for the 0 evidence that he had to admit he had and the judges agreed
To note, this trial wasn't short of comedy as we see here "expert" Podbielski clashing with Robert Koch Institute Dr. Mankertz disagreeing with each other over wether or not a virus *should* contain a ribosome! 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
So we move to the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court where Dr. Lanka produced his 58 page scientific rebuttal. (Linked at the end)
For sake of brevity I will present the core principal behind this rebuttal and then Dr. Lankas experiment in Part 2 of the thread.
For sake of brevity I will present the core principal behind this rebuttal and then Dr. Lankas experiment in Part 2 of the thread.
The reason why the trial is heavily focused on Enders 1954 paper is because it is the supposed isolation of the virus All other papers presented such as genomic sequencing, EM, protein analysis, PCR etc HAVE to have an isolated virus as a reference, without it NO PROOF
Going back to the comments made by Podbielski of "missing negative control". This was really only half true. The control was not "missing" it categorically FAILED. The effects meant to denote the presence of a virus were found in the uninfected sample.
Now people (lying shill clowns) who support the Trillion $ Pharma genocide machine like to strawman the second part which reads "they could be differentiated after being fixed and stained" as meaning "fine that is a successful control"
A. A change (CPE) that is meant to denote the presence of a virus if found AT ALL in the control is a failed experiment. The differentiation is not described and irrelevant.
B. In a court of law this has been described as MISSING i.e not complete.
B. In a court of law this has been described as MISSING i.e not complete.
Now this is where is gets interesting as we have clarified.. LEGALLY this cell culture technique FAILED. Unfortunately for virologists and the Trillion $ pharma genocide club this cell culture technique IS the gold standard of EVERY virus isolation since 1954 to present.
Again you will note the comments by Prof Podbielski that "This was an old paper" that science could build on. Well if you know the conclusions to this trial *spoiler alert* lol you will note ; There are NO scientific additions with any properly conducted Negative controls
As a scientific paper legally requires adequate controls to be performed to be used by government policy, in this case for Measles vax, we can only conclude that such a paper does not exist and so we also conclude there is no Proof of the existence of any virus by cell culture
So we fast forward to the closing statements of the unanimous decision of all three judges of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart overturning the decision and Granting the plaintiff Dr. Stefan Lanka the Win.
Dr. Bardens could then have 2 years ( I think) in which to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Germany. He decided not to appeal the decision and the time has passed for submission hence it is locked into German law forever.
Now there are plenty of silly little dim wits out there who believe in the mythical air fairies and big pharma so much that they want to spread the categorical LIE that "Lanka Won on a technicality, he said it had to be in only 1 paper" I will show you categorically this is a lie
Yes it stipulates that Lanka wanted "a singular paper" and yes it stipulated that a precise measurement of the virus I.e a characterisation of an isolated biological particle, was asked for...NOT a drawing which is par for the course in satisfying Kochs Postulates
But the reasons for the Judges to accept the singular paper only were based on Rational thought not a "technicality" that they didn't want 100 small letters being "pieced together like a puzzle" as that would not constitute proof
This should be obvious... but the 🤡s still cry
This should be obvious... but the 🤡s still cry
There is also a cry that "Because More than One was submitted Lanka got off"
Wrong.... Lie... Spelt out clearly here that there was no limit to the amount of papers you could submit
Wrong.... Lie... Spelt out clearly here that there was no limit to the amount of papers you could submit
Loading suggestions...