Vaccines

ellaya said:
In my case, I had to find out the truth about vaccines the hard way ! That was five years ago when my son was given the MMR vaccine. He was 3 yrs old at the time. He is a breast-fed child, and he never had any infections in the past. Ten days after the vaccine, all hell broke loose !!!

He developed severe infections in his throat and left ear that would not go away completely with antibiotics. We spent a year and half going back and forth between doctors and hospitals. Until he finally stopped responding to the antibiotics .

Later on we managed to find a decent doctor that helped us solve his situation, ofcourse he had to be hospitalized first to control the infections, then again to have his adenoids and tonsils removed. Even then it took a while for his condition to improve. I stopped vaccinating him ever since !

Hmm, that's interesting. When I was a kid I had a lot of ear and throat infections. And I had to get my tonsils and adenoids removed. I might look into when I got the MMR and other vaccinations. Thanks for sharing and I hope your son is doing well. :)
 
I been folllowing all the recent vaccine information that is being presented because I have a 2 1/2 year old granddaughter that lives in California where, as we here are well aware of, vaccines are mandatory. I just wanted to express a heartfelt thank you to all contributors for the sources and, particularly, the videos linked on the forum. I have been able to pass these along to my daughter. It is my hope that watching, reading and sharing this kind of content will give her the knowledge of facts that help her stand against and circumvent the potential harm that could be inflicted on her child just because of her geographic locale. Perhaps she will be a positive influence in her group of friends as well who may not take the time to question. I am realizing after going through these articles and videos that the knowledge and understanding gives one a sense of strength and possible HOPE for a better choice in life and a better future brought on by a better understanding.

Thank you all for your helpful efforts.
 
Charade said:
I been folllowing all the recent vaccine information that is being presented because I have a 2 1/2 year old granddaughter that lives in California where, as we here are well aware of, vaccines are mandatory.

In California, school children can avoid vaccines by getting a medical exemption from a doctor. There are several doctors who will provide the medical exemption. Vaccines are not mandatory for home schooled children. Also, as I understand it, vaccines are not mandatory in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The vaccine law requires schools to check at kindergarten and 7th grade. As I understand it, enrolling kindergarten itself is not mandatory, so I wonder what is to keep a parent from just keeping the kids home until 1st grade. Of course, the best route is to get that medical exemption.
 
hlat said:
Charade said:
I been folllowing all the recent vaccine information that is being presented because I have a 2 1/2 year old granddaughter that lives in California where, as we here are well aware of, vaccines are mandatory.

In California, school children can avoid vaccines by getting a medical exemption from a doctor. There are several doctors who will provide the medical exemption. Vaccines are not mandatory for home schooled children. Also, as I understand it, vaccines are not mandatory in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The vaccine law requires schools to check at kindergarten and 7th grade. As I understand it, enrolling kindergarten itself is not mandatory, so I wonder what is to keep a parent from just keeping the kids home until 1st grade. Of course, the best route is to get that medical exemption.

While a medical exemption is theoretically still possible, doctors who grant them are currently under attack by the California Medical Board, being brought up on charges of "gross negligence" in the case of Dr. Bob Sears, whose current fight with the board is garnering a great deal of attention at the moment. See Vaccine State USA: Mandatory vaccinations are here - California law requires total compliance
 
dugdeep said:
While a medical exemption is theoretically still possible, doctors who grant them are currently under attack by the California Medical Board, being brought up on charges of "gross negligence" in the case of Dr. Bob Sears, whose current fight with the board is garnering a great deal of attention at the moment. See Vaccine State USA: Mandatory vaccinations are here - California law requires total compliance

Bob Sears license discipline proceeding

Licensing information from the California Department of Consumer Affairs
_https://www.breeze.ca.gov/datamart/detailsCADCA.do?selector=false&selectorType=&selectorReturnUrl=&anchor=68f6161.3.1

Status of the disciplinary proceeding
_https://www.breeze.ca.gov/datamart/publicRecordDetailsCADCA.do?tableid=1502&lictyp=8002&licid=850864&licNumber=60936&rank=A&desc=Administrative%20Disciplinary%20Actions&recordid=26262499&from=/details&name=SEARS%2C+ROBERT+WILLIAM&licTypeDesc=Physician+and+Surgeon+A

Documents of disciplinary proceeding
_http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/BreezePDL/default.aspx?licenseType=A&licenseNumber=60936&name=SEARS,%20ROBERT%20WILLIAM

Disciplinary document formally initiating case (Accusation)
_http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/BreezePDL/document.aspx?path=%5cDIDOCS%5c20160909%5cDMRAAAFC12%5c&did=AAAFC160909210940460.DID&licenseType=A&licenseNumber=60936#page=1

Attorneys who worked for the California Department of Justice represent the Medical Board of California. The attorneys wrote the Accusation, most likely Trina Saunders since she is the last attorney listed on the first page of the Accusation.

I find it interesting that the Accusation uses Paragraph 17 as the standard of care. Basically, DOJ attorneys have played their hand with Paragraph 17. Now, California doctors can do what Paragraph 17 says, and they will have a complete defense against vaccine exemption negligence claims.

Paragraph 17, page 5, line 14 of Accusation.
The standard of care requires that a physician evaluating a patient for a possible reaction to vaccines obtain a detailed history of the vaccines previously received as well as the reaction/reactions that occurred. Based on that information the physician should provide an evidence-based recommendation for future immunization.

The hearing for this disciplinary proceeding will be held either in Los Angeles or San Diego, at either one of those courtrooms for the Office of Administrative Hearings. Most likely the hearing will not be held until 2017, and after the hearing it will likely be a couple months before an administrative decision is finalized, and even after that Sears can appeal to the regular courts.

I don't think this case will lead to revocation of Sears' medical license, meaning that he will likely still be a licensed doctor and California parents can continue seeing him to get a medical exemption for their children.
 
hlat said:
I don't think this case will lead to revocation of Sears' medical license, meaning that he will likely still be a licensed doctor and California parents can continue seeing him to get a medical exemption for their children.

But how quick is a doctor going to grant a medical exemption after the rigmarole Sears is being put through, regardless of the outcome? The point is that it is an attack on a doctor who was acting out of conscience after being told one of his patients had a negative reaction to a previous vaccine. These actions make it more difficult to grant an exemption, knowing the consequences of not crossing all your t's or dotting all your i's. Even though they're technically still allowed, I'm willing to bet you'd be more likely to get struck by lightening twice than get a medical exemption for vaccines in the state of California in the near future.

More on the Sears case - https://www.sott.net/article/329903-Vaccine-safety-is-a-concern-Doctors-disagree-with-charges-against-Dr-Bob-Sears
 
dugdeep said:
hlat said:
I don't think this case will lead to revocation of Sears' medical license, meaning that he will likely still be a licensed doctor and California parents can continue seeing him to get a medical exemption for their children.

But how quick is a doctor going to grant a medical exemption after the rigmarole Sears is being put through, regardless of the outcome? The point is that it is an attack on a doctor who was acting out of conscience after being told one of his patients had a negative reaction to a previous vaccine. These actions make it more difficult to grant an exemption, knowing the consequences of not crossing all your t's or dotting all your i's. Even though they're technically still allowed, I'm willing to bet you'd be more likely to get struck by lightening twice than get a medical exemption for vaccines in the state of California in the near future.

More on the Sears case - https://www.sott.net/article/329903-Vaccine-safety-is-a-concern-Doctors-disagree-with-charges-against-Dr-Bob-Sears

I agree with dugdeep on this point and having followed this vaccine issue for years now :curse: it is getting worse by the day in my personal opinion the Bob Sears case is just the beginning.

hlat said:
In California, school children can avoid vaccines by getting a medical exemption from a doctor. There are several doctors who will provide the medical exemption. Vaccines are not mandatory for home schooled children. Also, as I understand it, vaccines are not mandatory in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The vaccine law requires schools to check at kindergarten and 7th grade. As I understand it, enrolling kindergarten itself is not mandatory, so I wonder what is to keep a parent from just keeping the kids home until 1st grade. Of course, the best route is to get that medical exemption.

If you read the article dugdeep posted you will see that many doctors in California are worried that they will loose their license if they grant medical exemptions. From what I hear from several parents (in California) who have school aged children and who are dealing with the repercussions of the SB277 mandatory law, medical exemptions are out of the question, almost "impossible" is the term used frequently. One friend who has a child in 5th grade was told by a doctor recently that he would grant her an exemption but to please not share this with anyone, he was several hundred miles away and required extreme persistence on the part of the parent to even grant that exemption to begin with. Another parent who has a preschool age child had to spend $200.00 for the exemption and it was only considered 'temporary', meaning she will have to pay again next year when he enters elementary school.

So it begs the question are other parents in California experiencing the same frustrations and are medical exemptions are being 'handed out' no problem?
 
I think we all know that the current US governments rule by fear and intimidation. I think, when push comes to shove, and some doctors call California DOJ's bluff by fighting through the disciplinary administrative hearing and courts, those doctors will prevail. We have a situation currently where people licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs can be convicted of theft and fraud and keep their licenses. So, in my view, this Accusation for negligence against Sears is an intimidation tactic and will not result in revocation of his license. I think it is most likely that the Medical Board staff within the Department of Consumer Affairs targeted Sears because he is very public in his support for the right to vaccine exemptions. Usually the Medical Board brings Accusations in response to complaints by members of the public. So those other California doctors who are not outspoken will fly under the radar and I don't think the Medical Board will do anything to them because the Medical Board doesn't know about them.

The vast majority, both doctors and parents, are lost since vaccination rates were above 90% before this law. What will the small minority do, who are specifically attacked by this law? I'm not saying it is easy for average California parents to get the exemption, like a regular visit to their doctor.

Whether Sears or other California doctors continue issuing medical exemptions will depend on their personalities and character. Are they risk adverse and cower at intimidation? Do they find ways to do what they think is right in the face of intimidation? The doctors issuing exemptions are a small minority and appear to believe that they are doing what is safe for their patients. It's up to them whether they will turn their backs of patient safety.

The same goes for California parents. Will they obey the intimidation? Will they make extra efforts to continue to get vaccine exemptions? For the small minority of parents that keep trying, I think it is open whether DCM opens doors for them, however unlikely it may seem to anyone else.

I do think the vaccine exemptions will not be cheap, and the $200 price for the exemption is within my expectations of how much the doctor's fees cost.

I took a look at the text of SB277, and there is no loophole to homeschooling for kindergarten (or 7th) grade and enrolling in 1st (or 8th) grade, due to Health and Safety Code Section 120335(g). As a result, the requirement to be met is Section 120370(a):

If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt

Between that and the Accusation's standard of care, doctors have the blueprint for issuing exemptions within the new law.
 
hlat said:
I think we all know that the current US governments rule by fear and intimidation. I think, when push comes to shove, and some doctors call California DOJ's bluff by fighting through the disciplinary administrative hearing and courts, those doctors will prevail. We have a situation currently where people licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs can be convicted of theft and fraud and keep their licenses. So, in my view, this Accusation for negligence against Sears is an intimidation tactic and will not result in revocation of his license. I think it is most likely that the Medical Board staff within the Department of Consumer Affairs targeted Sears because he is very public in his support for the right to vaccine exemptions. Usually the Medical Board brings Accusations in response to complaints by members of the public. So those other California doctors who are not outspoken will fly under the radar and I don't think the Medical Board will do anything to them because the Medical Board doesn't know about them.

The vast majority, both doctors and parents, are lost since vaccination rates were above 90% before this law. What will the small minority do, who are specifically attacked by this law? I'm not saying it is easy for average California parents to get the exemption, like a regular visit to their doctor.

Whether Sears or other California doctors continue issuing medical exemptions will depend on their personalities and character. Are they risk adverse and cower at intimidation? Do they find ways to do what they think is right in the face of intimidation? The doctors issuing exemptions are a small minority and appear to believe that they are doing what is safe for their patients. It's up to them whether they will turn their backs of patient safety.

The same goes for California parents. Will they obey the intimidation? Will they make extra efforts to continue to get vaccine exemptions? For the small minority of parents that keep trying, I think it is open whether DCM opens doors for them, however unlikely it may seem to anyone else.

I do think the vaccine exemptions will not be cheap, and the $200 price for the exemption is within my expectations of how much the doctor's fees cost.

I took a look at the text of SB277, and there is no loophole to homeschooling for kindergarten (or 7th) grade and enrolling in 1st (or 8th) grade, due to Health and Safety Code Section 120335(g). As a result, the requirement to be met is Section 120370(a):

If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances, including, but not limited to, family medical history, for which the physician does not recommend immunization, that child shall be exempt

Between that and the Accusation's standard of care, doctors have the blueprint for issuing exemptions within the new law.

It seems your entire argument rests on finding rebel doctors who are willing to do whatever it takes to stand up to corrupt intimidation tactics, despite repercussions. I'd say good luck finding such a doctor. It would also require that they be willing to be held up in court for - how long? Again, good luck finding a doctor willing to lay it all on the line over this issue. There are very few Dr. Sears out there.
 
dugdeep said:
Even though they're technically still allowed, I'm willing to bet you'd be more likely to get struck by lightening twice than get a medical exemption for vaccines in the state of California in the near future.

SOTT Intuition can lessen the influence of cognitive biases
Overconfidence effect: Excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.

In 2017, I have helped a California child successfully obtain a medical exemption to vaccines from a California doctor on the first attempt and successfully enroll in a California school on the first attempt.

A theory that does not conform to practical experience and data must be changed. As I see it, California parents who put in the effort will get the medical exemption to vaccines from a California doctor.

There's no update on the Bob Sears case, and as I see it the reason there is no update is that the case is never going to go anywhere. Sears is going to keep his medical license. The previous status link is not working so I have to use this link and type Robert Sears, and in the search results he has license number 60936.
_https://www.breeze.ca.gov/datamart/searchByName.do
 
I've noticed different versions of this article being shared recently on social media:

_https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/04/03/seven-reasons-to-avoid-measles/

It's focus is the safety of the measles vaccine, and it puts forward several arguments. Several of them are familiar, and there are counterarguments to them available in the literature. One of them though, "immune amnesia", is new to me (see article above for a link to the study they reference):

Immune amnesia – two year reset of the immune system

A 2015 study tracked real world incidence of measles and other infectious disease, and found a profound effect in overall ability to fight disease following a measles infection:

Immunosuppression after measles is known to predispose people to opportunistic infections for a period of several weeks to months. Using population-level data, we show that measles has a more prolonged effect on host resistance, extending over 2 to 3 years.

This seems to be the promising missing piece in a long-time puzzle of the general dip in disease statistics following wide-spread vaccination programs: after measles vaccinations, all cause mortalities dropped as well. NPR reports on it at Scientists crack a 50 year old mystery about the measles vaccine:

Back in the 1960s, the U.S. started vaccinating kids for measles. As expected, children stopped getting measles.

But something else happened.

Childhood deaths from all infectious diseases plummeted. Even deaths from diseases like pneumonia and diarrhea were cut by half. […] “So it’s really been a mystery — why do children stop dying at such high rates from all these different infections following introduction of the measles vaccine,” he says. […]

“We found measles predisposes children to all other infectious diseases for up to a few years,” Mina says.

The concept of measles ‘immune amnesia’, or measles immune suppression, is not new, however, and has been studied for decades, although its effects have earlier been thought to last weeks or months, rather than years. Even so, the prolonged immune suppression has long been considered to be responsible for measles’ most debilitating effects. From a 2004 review:

Deaths from measles are due largely to an increased susceptibility to secondary bacterial and viral infections, attributed to a prolonged state of immune suppression. Several abnormalities of the immune system have been described, including changes in lymphocyte number and function, shifts in cytokine responses, immunomodulatory effects of interleukin-10, down regulation of interleukin-12, impaired antigen presentation, and altered interferon alpha/beta signaling pathways.

The most recent review, from 2013, looks more into the mechanisms, and notes that: “The morbidity and mortality of MV is associated with severe immune suppression.”

Measles’ immunosuppressant properties have also been studied in macaque monkeys: Measles Immune Suppression: Lessons from the Macaque Model:

The rapid oligoclonal expansion of MV-specific lymphocytes and bystander cells masks this depletion, explaining the short duration of measles lymphopenia yet long duration of immune suppression.

And as if this bummer of a immune-reset from measles would not be bad enough, recent research has also found the risk of a grave side effect, SSPE to be much larger than previously considered.

I've done some preliminary searching, but I can't find any real discussion about it so far online -- only repetition of the same talking points attached to the original study. Has anyone looked into this at all, and do you have any critique of the methodology of the study or the analysis?
 
Hello everyone,

Here is an excellent article on the measles vaccine. Good reading



Judges at the German Federal Supreme Court have confirmed that the measles virus does not exist, vindicating conspiracy theorists who have said that no study has ever proven the existence of the virus.

According to the judgement by the Supreme Court, the measles vaccination may have been injected into millions of unsuspecting German citizens for sinister reasons.

Anonhq.com reports:

The First Civil Senate of the BGH has confirmed the judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) of the 16 February 2016. The sum of €100,000 which I had offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not 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.

Genetics falsifies thesis of existence

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 on 16 February 2016 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 16 February 2016.

Conclusions

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.

Source: http://yournewswire.com/german-supreme-court-measles/


Bonjour à tous,

Voici un excellent article sur le vaccin de la rougeole . Bonne lecture

La Cour suprême fédérale allemande : Le virus de la rougeole n’existe pas

Les juges de la Cour suprême fédérale allemande ont confirmé que le virus de la rougeole n’existe pas, ce qui disculpe les théoriciens du complot qui disent qu’aucune étude n’a jamais prouvé l’existence des virus.

D’après ce jugement de la Cour suprême, la vaccination contre la rougeole a pu être injectée à des millions de citoyens allemands [et du monde entier] sans méfiance pour des raisons ténébreuses.

Anonhq.com rapporte :

La première séance civile de la Cour suprême fédérale allemande a confirmé le jugement rendu par le Haut Tribunal de Stuttgart du 16 février 2016. La somme de 100 000 euros, que j’avais [Dr Stefan Lanka] offerte en récompense de la preuve scientifique de l’existence du virus de la rougeole, n’a pas à être versée au demandeur. Le demandeur a aussi été condamné à supporter tous les frais de procédure.

Les cinq experts engagés dans l’affaire ont présenté les conclusions des études scientifiques. Chacun des cinq experts, dont le Professeur Dr Andreas Podbielski, nommés par le Haut Tribunal de Stuttgart, tout comme par la juridiction précédente, ont invariablement constaté qu’aucune des six publications présentées au procès n’apporte la preuve scientifique de l’existence du présumé virus de la rougeole.

La génétique réfute la thèse de l’existence [du virus]

Les résultats de la recherche sur la soi-disant carte peptidique du présumé virus de la rougeole, a été présentée au procès. Deux laboratoires reconnus, dont le plus grand et le plus important institut de génétique du monde, sont parvenus exactement aux mêmes conclusions de façon indépendante. Les conclusions prouvent que, dans l’affaire du virus de la rougeole, les auteurs des six publications se sont trompés, et tous les virologistes spécialistes de la rougeole se trompent toujours aujourd’hui : Ils prennent des constituants cellulaires ordinaires pour des parties du présumé virus de la rougeole.

À cause de cette erreur, pendant les décennies de développement du consensus, des constituants normaux de cellules ont été assemblés mentalement en un modèle de virus de la rougeole. À ce jour, aucune structure réelle correspondant à ce modèle n’a été trouvée, ni chez l’humain, ni chez l’animal. Avec les résultats des tests génétiques, toutes les thèses de l’existence du virus de la rougeole ont été réfutées scientifiquement.

Les auteurs des six publications et toutes les autres personnes impliquées ne se sont pas rendus compte de l’erreur parce qu’elles violaient un devoir scientifique fondamental : la nécessité de travailler « dans les règles de l’art », c’est-à-dire conformément aux règles définies au niveau international et aux meilleures pratiques scientifiques. Ils n’ont pas fait les expériences de contrôle. Les expériences de contrôle auraient prémuni les auteurs et l’humanité de cette erreur capitale. Cette erreur est devenue le fondement de la croyance en l’existence de chaque virus à l’origine de maladies. Répondant à la question pertinente du tribunal, conformément à la page 7 du protocole, l’expert désigné par le tribunal, le Prof Dr Podbielski, a confirmé explicitement que les auteurs n’ont fait aucune expérience de contrôle.

Le 16 février 2016, le Haut Tribunal de Stuttgart a cassé le jugement du tribunal de première instance, rejeté l’action et renvoyé, entre autres, au discours capital du professeur Podbielski à propos des six publications. Le demandeur a interjeté appel du jugement du Haut Tribunal devant la Cour suprême. Il a justifié sa position en exposant sa perception subjective, mais objectivement fausse, sur le cours du procès à la cour de Stuttgart et l’affirmation selon laquelle notre dénomination des faits sur la rougeole pose une menace pour la santé publique. La position du demandeur a été rejetée par la Cour suprême en termes clairs. Ainsi, la Cour suprême a confirmé l’arrêt du Haut Tribunal de Stuttgart du 16 février 2016.
Conclusions

Les six publications soumises au procès sont les principales publications ad hoc concernant le « virus de la rougeole ». Comme à part ces six publications il n’en existe pas d’autres qui tenteraient de prouver l’existence du virus de la rougeole par des méthodes scientifiques, le jugement de la Cour suprême sur le virus de la rougeole et les résultats des tests génétiques ont des conséquences : Toute déclaration nationale et internationale sur le présumé virus de la rougeole, sur le caractère infectieux de la rougeole et les avantages et l’innocuité de la vaccination contre la rougeole, est dénuée de tout fondement légitime.

Lors d’enquêtes déclenchées par la contestation du virus de la rougeole, la directrice de l’Institut national de référence pour la rougeole de l’Institut Robert Koch, le professeur Annette Mankertz, a admis un fait important. Cet aveu peut expliquer la montée du taux de handicaps induits par la vaccination contre la rougeole, et pourquoi et comment, en particulier ce type de vaccin, semble déclencher de plus en plus d’autisme.

Le professeur Mankertz a admis que le « virus de la rougeole » contient des composantes cellulaires naturelles typiques (des ribosomes ou fabriques de protéines cellulaires). Puisque la vaccination contre la rougeole contient le « virus de la rougeole entier », ce vaccin contient des structures propres à la cellule. Cela explique pourquoi la vaccination contre la rougeole provoque de fréquentes allergies et des réactions auto-immunes plus sévères que les autres types de vaccins. L’expert de la cour, le professeur Podbielski, a dit à plusieurs reprises que, du fait de l’aveu de Mme Annette Mankertz sur les ribosomes dans le virus de la rougeole, la thèse de l’existence du virus de la rougeole a été réfutée.

Lors du procès, il a aussi été consigné que la plus haute autorité scientifique allemande dans le domaine des maladies infectieuses, l’Institut Robert Koch, contrairement à sa compétence légale conformément au § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), n’a pu créer de tests sur le présumé virus de la rougeole à les publier. L’Institut Robert Koch prétend avoir fait des études internes sur le virus de la rougeole, mais refuse de remettre les résultats ou de les publier.

Source: http://reseauinternational.net/la-cour-supreme-federale-allemande-le-virus-de-la-rougeole-nexiste-pas/
 
Hi GAIA14,

This article is misleading.

The German OLG has only found, that the conditions that were posed by the defendant for a payout were not met - the conditions being, that the proof of a measle virus AND it's diameter needed to be found in a SINGLE publication.

The experts and the court all recognized, that the existence of the measles virus was proven beyond doubt by the plaintiff's six publications, but that the plaintiff hadn't done so in a single publication, and so didn't satisfy the published rules for payout.

The court verdict (in German) can be found here.
 
There is an article on SOTT about this?

https://www.sott.net/article/340948-Biologist-wins-Supreme-Court-case-proving-that-the-measles-virus-does-not-exist
 
Hello H2O said:
There is an article on SOTT about this?

https://www.sott.net/article/340948-Biologist-wins-Supreme-Court-case-proving-that-the-measles-virus-does-not-exist

I'm not saying that the measles virus doesn't exist - I haven't studied this particular matter enough to make an informed decision. The only thing I am saying is that the gist of the article saying that the German OLG confirmed that the "measle virus doesn't exist" is misleading. They actually confirmed that the measle virus DOES exist, but that the parameters for the payout (proof of the measle virus AND it's diameter in a SINGLE publication) was not met.

Read the court publication (which is very tedious reading - and only available in German) if you can and let me know if you come to a different conclusion.

It may well be that the defendent is right about the non-existence of the measle virus, but that is not my point here.
 
Back
Top Bottom