Round Table! NUREMBERG 2.0 - Conspiracies - Conspiracy Theories & Facts

Round Table! NUREMBERG 2.0

posted 3 years ago by clemaneuverers [M] 3 years ago by clemaneuverers +86 / -5

Led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, 1,000 Lawyers and 10,000 Doctors Have Filed a Class Action Lawsuit against the CDC, WHO and WEF for Violations of the Nuremberg Code (actually, this title is a tad misleading: see the comments)

Thanks to u/axolotl_peyotl for the winning suggestion!

Previous Round Tables

23 comments

23 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (23)

sorted by:

▲ 0 ▼

– klausi 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

He won on appeal and the independent expert witness testimony in that appeal is quite valuable, since he describes how the papers that purport to prove the existence of the measles virus are flawed science that don't hold up to scrutiny and could not be seen as proofs.

He won because because he requested one proof but got 6 instead: "In plain language: If the plaintiff or a third party had prepared an overview of the six studies presented and merged the two required criteria there, the sponsor would have had to pay the prize money" Source

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– clemaneuverers [S] 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Ok, so I was just remembering, and my quote is inexact, as is the article you linked.

So here is a link to the full trial ruling transcript, which I note was not provided in that article:

http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&GerichtAuswahl=Oberlandesgerichte&Art=en&sid=46bf3db2df690aba6e4874acafaf45b6&nr=20705&pos=0&anz=1

And here are the Minutes of the Court Proceedings:

https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/Lanka_Case_Protokoll_13_4_2015.pdf

And here is another opinion on the proceedings/result:

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.

Source

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 0 ▼

– klausi 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

From your source:

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 January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– clemaneuverers [S] 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Yes, Barden failed to meet Lanka's criteria, which were laid out in plain language beforehand and which Barden agreed to. He even clarified the criteria personally with Lanka before he entered the competition.

The mis-leading part I meant is this:

If the plaintiff or a third party had prepared an overview of the six studies presented and merged the two required criteria there, the sponsor would have had to pay the prize money...

This appears to be a conjecture of OLG press spokesman Stefan Schüler, which he appears to attribute to the Judges. It's not contained in the proceedings or ruling.

permalink parent save report block reply