1
klausi 1 point ago +1 / -0

and no one else has the logistics to carry it out...

Oh sweet summer child, do you really believe that? Lol

1
klausi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Neither does the article mention anything about "the jew"

1
klausi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Naming conventions? Next level ai!!1!

2
klausi 2 points ago +2 / -0

organize a group of like-minded friends,

If they are friends, I don't have to screen them.

1
klausi 1 point ago +2 / -1

Sounds like a great "community" to be part of. I am sure feds won't ever be able to bypass this "vetting" process

2
klausi 2 points ago +2 / -0

4/5 posts with almost the same number of upvotes seem not very organic? Just a wild guess

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
klausi 3 points ago +3 / -0

You trust anyone to perform unbiased tests?

1
klausi 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

1
klausi 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

view more: Next ›