"Even the Pasteur Institute did not do any control tests - and thus did not detect 'SARS-CoV-2'"

No votes yet
"Even the Pasteur Institute did not do any control tests - and thus did not detect 'SARS-CoV-2'"
In a unique court case, Marvin Haberland wants to clarify whether "SARS-CoV-2" was detected. In an interview, the engineer explains why he is focusing on the question of whether control experiments were carried out in the detection studies. 
By Torsten Engelbrecht
The court hearing is open to the public. This means that everyone can attend the trial - a trial that is not only unique, but could hardly be more explosive. If the 30-year-old Marvin Haberland were to prevail in court with his opinion, nothing less than the established "virus building" would be brought down. The first hearing at the Hamburg District Court is on 19 October.
In the interview Haberland explains why correct science without control experiments is de facto worthless, how he wants to proceed in court and how he assesses his chances of success. He also explains how his scepticism about the official virus theory developed during a study visit to the renowned US University of Berkeley.
Video  interview see article article ( German)  

Hello Martin, welcome! Your case is not primarily about whether "SARS-CoV-2" was detected, but about an administrative offence and the issue of masks. What exactly happened there?

Marvin Haberland: For quite a while we had a mask obligation in Hamburg. And where I lived, I couldn't leave my house at all without having to put on a mask. Because directly in front of my house was a pedestrian zone where masks were compulsory. I then left the house without the mask, as I usually do, and once the police objected to this and considered it a misdemeanour. Subsequently, a fine was imposed - and I lodged an objection against this fine with the request to have it examined by the courts. The Hamburg district court is responsible for this.

How did you get the idea to focus on the topic of "SARS-CoV-2" detection?

I have been working intensively on the topic of health, nutrition and medicine for five years now and have come across the fact that there is quite a controversial discussion in the scientific community about whether things are done scientifically in virology and whether the scientific method is applied correctly. After all, even the German Infection Protection Act, which is quite unique worldwide, explicitly states right at the beginning in paragraph 1 that everyone involved, every researcher, every institution, every authority, every university and ultimately also every doctor is obliged to work according to the state of science.

This includes, in particular, conducting control experiments. That is quite clear. That is why I have meticulously looked through all relevant publications and asked the Robert Koch Institute and all authorities for publications in which the pathogen is said to have been detected. You, Torsten, had also written to five authors who had carried out authoritative studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 - and I have also read all of these studies. In doing so, I noticed the same thing that Stefan Lanka and other scientists have already found out, namely that in none of these studies were corresponding control experiments carried out.

Can you please explain briefly what exactly is meant by "control experiment"?

In science, you make a hypothesis. You have a certain idea of a cause-effect relationship. For example, I want to prove that I can break a window with a feather. To do that, I have to do an experiment to prove or verify this hypothesis - and then I also have to offer an experiment to falsify the hypothesis.

To do this, I tie the feather to a stone so that it can fly better. Then I throw the stone and the feather through the window and see what happens. Of course, the window also breaks.

If I didn't do a control experiment, I could theoretically conclude that it was the feather  that caused the window to break. The control experiment would now consist of taking away the independent variable to be investigated, i.e. the spring, and throwing the stone alone through the window - and then seeing whether the glass then remains intact or not. Only then will I know for sure whether the spring can be held causally responsible for the glass breaking. By the way, the feather here stands for the particles that are claimed to be viruses. But the spring cannot be held accountable for the shattering of the window, because of course this also happens when the stone hits the glass alone.

What would be an ideal control experiment in the context of virus detection?

For example, you start by mixing a cell culture with a sample from the nose or lungs of someone who has been affected by symptoms of disease or has tested "positive". Several substances are then added to this "mixture", including antibiotics and foetal bovine serum. If cells die as a result, this is taken as proof that the cell culture mixture must have contained a virus that is responsible for the cell death.

Subsequently, electron micrographs are taken of this "decayed" cell culture, and certain structures or particles can be seen on them, which are interpreted as viruses.

However, the basic prerequisite for being able to conclude that these particles are actually viruses is to create a control cell culture. Everything is done in the same way as before - for example, antibiotics and foetal bovine serum are added. The only difference is that in this control cell culture, the initial sample does not come from a sick or "positive" person, but from a healthy or symptom-free or "negative" person. And if the same structures or particles can be seen on the electron microscope images of this control cell culture as on those of the cell culture to which a sample from a sick person was added, then it would not be possible to conclude that viruses were at work here.

But to the best of your knowledge, such a control experiment has not been carried out, right?

Yes, exactly. Such an experiment has really never been done. And there are even institutions that openly admit this.

Why do you think it was never done?

As part of my court case, I sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Doherty Institute at the University of Melbourne. This institute had published a study in 2020, which was the first outside China, with which virologists claimed to have isolated "SARS-CoV-2". I wanted to know from the authors of this paper whether they had carried out corresponding control experiments. And they wrote me back that they had not done such control experiments.

I then asked: Why don't you do any controls? And the answer was that they didn't have enough capacity left for it. Their study was published as having no control experiment. But also in the guidelines of the German Research Foundation, for example, it is clearly stated with regard to what scientific work means that one should not publish early before one has finished all documentation and thus also all control experiments.

In January 2020, a team led by Christian Drosten published a centrally important publication describing what is perhaps the world's most important test protocols for the so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Regarding this study, Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer, Jens Wernicke, editor of Rubikon, and I asked the Charité, Drosten's employer, in mid-2020 whether it also included the performance of control tests. The Charité's answer: "We will not comment on such alleged 'scientific statements'." Doesn't that contradict your view?

It is completely undisputed in science that you have to control your results. That is also recognised worldwide. The Charité itself also writes this in its guidelines. Just like the Robert Koch Institute, they are committed to the methods of good scientific practice published by the German Research Foundation. And every researcher has these guidelines in his or her employment contract. Among other things, it says that you should always and consistently challenge yourself, that you should document everything you do. And everyone who receives research funding in Germany is obliged to comply with these scientific rules. In this respect, that also applies to the Charité.

How should things proceed for you in court now?

I have submitted numerous motions for evidence. These include a request to the judge to ask a virologist  of his choice whether he can present a study in which a virus has been proven, including a control experiment. Another request to the court is to ask a laboratory or virologist to carry out an appropriate experiment.

I have also submitted my aforementioned request to the Australian Doherty Institute to the court, which revealed that the researchers concede that they did not carry out such a control experiment. I also received an answer from France, from the scientific director of the world-famous Institut Pasteur in Paris, which corresponds to the Robert Kocht Institute here. According to this, no control tests were carried out there either. This, too, is now before the judge. He must now decide whether, according to paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act, the scientific character is still given.

In the soldiers' trial before the Federal Administrative Court, for example, extensive motions for evidence were filed and even experts were heard - and yet in the end this highest German court did not appreciate all that and ruled against the plaintiff soldiers. Does something like that affect your confidence?

I am very confident because the argumentation I chose is in principle very simple. The court must now deal with it and cannot "escape" into other aspects. Especially since it is quite clear that in the cases in which control experiments were carried out - as happened, for example, in 1954 or currently in an experiment by Stefan Lanka - they are always positive, i.e. the result is the same as in the original experiment. Or to use the image of the feather, the stone and the window again: the window  always breaks even if I only throw the stone into it and not the stone plus the feather.

In this context, by the way, a French biologist from Nice confirmed to me that he had not carried out any control experiments in his study before his work was published, but that he had done so afterwards. And these controls turned out to be positive. In other words, the results of the original experiment and the control experiment, in which a sample from a healthy person was used, were the same.

So the fact that a virus was detected cannot be deduced from this either. And it can be assumed that the particles that are suspected or claimed to be viruses are structures that are merely the result of the decay process in the cell culture. This would then have to be verified. We know, of course, that this is the case, from the control experiments we have already done in the past.

In any case, the work of the French should never have been published in this way. Or the work should at least have been corrected or withdrawn afterwards, when the results of the control experiment were available.

If, despite all this, the judge should actually rule against me, then that would be okay for me personally in a way. Because then we would have a verdict that says: In virology, you don't have to do any control experiments, so to speak. But that would, to a certain extent, make a mockery of the whole thing.

What do you expect for 19 October, the day of the first trial at the Hamburg District Court? Will there already be some kind of "showdown"?

That depends on the judge. I am a legal layman myself, but as I understand it, this is the first level. In any case, the judge has everything before him - and he is actually completely free in his decision. Either he examines all my requests for evidence and then passes judgement, or he doesn't look at all this and rejects the requests for evidence. In that case, however, he would have to give reasons why he did so. After that, I would go to the next court instance. And there is no "alternative", i.e. everything has to be examined. In this respect, nothing bad can actually happen now. One way or another, it will lead to success as far as the educational work is concerned.

You studied at Berkeley University, which is one of the most renowned in the USA and is located near San Francisco - and during this time you came to your critical attitude towards viruses. What happened to you then?

My grandma had been diagnosed with cancer in 2017 and then received the standard treatment, which was chemotherapy. During this time, I studied at Berkeley University on a Fulbright scholarship. Then, unfortunately, my grandma passed away. That triggered something in me, so I started to look at the scientific basis of chemotherapy and cancer diagnosis. That's also how I came across the topic of infectious diseases.
Berkeley University was a very special place in that respect. Because it is the home of highly decorated scientists with a critical view of things, especially HIV/AIDS, but also virology in general. This included in particular Kary Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for the invention of PCR. He sadly passed away in 2019, but I still got to see him live. Peter Duisberg, who is still a professor at Berkeley, should also be mentioned.
As a student, I followed up on what these people were criticising, and that's how I came across the work of Stefan Lanka, a German biologist and virologist, and also your book "Virus Mania ", among others. All this made me think. And I started to check things out for myself. I have an academic degree and am quite capable of understanding how the scientific method works. In the process, I also looked to see if checks were being made.
When Corona started in 2020, I also checked whether control experiments had been carried out in the authoritative Chinese study by Zhu et al. and whether the particles claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 had been correctly isolated or purified. And I had to conclude that in this study, too, what was always done in principle was simply done, be it with measles, with HIV, with SARS-1, with avian flu, with swine flu or be it with influenza and so on: a misinterpretation of particles - and that such a misinterpretation is only possible at all because no control experiments were carried out.
When it comes to criticising the established viral narrative, the topic of HIV/AIDS is perhaps the "hottest potato". In this context, and indeed in the absence of viral detection in general, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Val Turner of the Australian Perth Group have done pioneering work. Their works include the paper "A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis" and the brief "The Emperor's New Virus? Were you also not afraid to tackle such a "hot" potato that has burnt many a career and reputation?
Of course, I also studied the works of Eleni Papadopulos and Val Turner intensively. And everything they have written is correct. This reading in particular has also strengthened my belief that it is enormously important not to simply believe anything and instead to check everything out for yourself.
With HIV, too, indirect "evidence" was used, mind you. Here, too, what is called a virus has never been isolated. Rather, one has only referred to certain phenomena in cell culture, especially the activity of the enzyme reverse transcriptase. But this always occurs or can always occur in such cell cultures, even in the control experiment, and yet it was used as proof of the presence of HIV.
The topic of virus detection is still a kind of "red rag" for many - even for people within the critical Corona movement. Just think of the almost legendary appearance of Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka at the 90th meeting of the Corona Committee, where Wolfgang Wodarg in particular did not cut a very good figure. What do you think is the reason for this - and how do you think people could be made to deal with this issue in an unagitated way?
I think it is very important that we all say very clearly first of all: we do recognise symptoms, people can get sick, people can get what you summarise under a term like measles, for example.
That's all there, you can't deny it. And no one does either. But we also have to ask: Why do people get sick? Conventional medicine comes up with its virus model here. But I think it is important that we finally start to get to the bottom of the causes, the real causes. Especially since we know that the virus model has definitely been scientifically disproved, at least if we take the methods we have as a basis.
Of course, you can never say that there are no viruses. Because you can't prove the non-existence of something. You can only prove the existence of something. And, it should be stressed again, at least according to the current state of science and according to the scientific methods, no one has ever proven a virus.
After all, the "Corona era" has led to a certain rethinking even among some vaccination advocates. Similar to the flu vaccination, people are also noticing with regard to the Corona "vaccination" that it does not seem to protect against symptoms.
I have also observed for many years how society is getting sicker and sicker and how people are not being helped properly. At the same time, there is so much suppressed knowledge about what the real causes of people's health problems are or can be. Intensive research should finally be done in this direction.
Or let's take the topic of corona and masks. There are ten randomised controlled studies that show unequivocally that masks do not protect against infections and that it makes no difference to the development of symptoms whether someone wears a mask or not. This is well known and by no means new knowledge. In this respect, it is surprising that so many people are reluctant to accept the facts that are clearly available.
This may have to do with the fact that people or even entire institutions have built their livelihoods on an official theory. They would lose a great deal if this theory were to be discarded. But that is the scientific process. It's happened a thousand times in history, not just with Galileo Galileo. I hope that the Corona issue will finally draw enough attention to the inadequacy of the established virus model so that we can finally create a paradigm shift.
Thank you very much for the interview! We are looking forward to what will take place on 19 October at the Hamburg District Court.
Thank you also. I would of course be delighted to have plenty of support at my court date.
Marvin Haberland (30) works as an engineer in Hamburg. He graduated in 2018 with a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering. He then received a Fulbright scholarship and studied at the University of California at Berkeley, where he graduated with a Master of Engineering. Since 2017, he has been working intensively on nutritional science, infection/germ theory and virology, specifically with regard to scientific evidence.