All About That Measles Trial

Summary notes, videos available to NL subscribers

deepL translate

https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/Abonnenten-Bereich

The Measles Virus Trial Part 1 - 3

No scientific proof produced - What really happened -
Part 1: The background
How did the trial come about?

• How did the trial come about?
• Who had the idea for the award?
• Who accepted the award and what was submitted?

In Part 1, we look at the background and show what "sparked" the call for entries and how the process came about.

Part 2: The start of the process

Expert opinions & statements

• The questionable reaction of the RKI
• Why an expert opinion, and who was the expert?
• Result of the expert opinion
• Dr. Lanka's statement and the expert's responses to it

In Part 2, we show how Dr. Lanka "dissected" the court-ordered expert opinion in his statement.

Part 3: Trial 1st instance
The expert's statement & verdict of 1st instance

• The spectacular oral questioning of the expert witness
• What really happened in court?
• How was the decision reached?

In Part 3, we show how the expert completely refuted his own expert opinion and statement in the crossfire of the questioning through his answers in court!

The measles virus process Part 3.1 - 3.3

Summary notes, videos available to NL subscribers

deepL translate

https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/Abonnenten-Bereich

The measles virus process Part 3.1 - 3.3
Details that hardly anyone noticed...
Events and details that even many (most?) virus and vaccination critics missed:

Part 3.1:
Review paper by Horikami & Moyer (publication no. 5).

• What is this "publication" actually ?
• Why is it NOT scientific ?
• Gold standard ? Really ? Or rather a "shot in its own knee" ?

Part 3.2:
The correspondence with the RKI between the 1st and 2nd instance.

• Why is the ribosome issue so relevant ?
• The RKI confirms the statements of Dr. Stefan Lanka !
• The RKI admits that they did not carry out any controls and existential research ! An indirect admission of unscientificness by the most influential health authority in the whole country

Part 3.3:
The appeal (for the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart)

• The Highlihgts: What does the appeal say, what was requested?
• The 5 submitted expert opinions refute the existence of the measles "virus".

In part 3.1 - part 3.3 we show what happened between the 1st and 2nd instance. What evidence was uncovered? What arguments were put forward that led to the appeal being accepted?

The Measles Virus Trial Part 4

Summary notes, videos available to NL subscribers

deepL translate

https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/Abonnenten-Bereich

The Measles Virus Trial Part 4
No scientific proof provided - What really happened -

Part 4: Trial of the 2nd Instance
! 3:0 victory for Dr. Lanka !

• What happened between the two trials ?
• The admission of the RKI to Dr. Lanka
• The trial day: expert opinions | statements | evidence
• The judgement of the OLG and BGH

No proof of the existence of a virus was provided!
A crystal-clear verdict followed !

Even after 8 years and a lot of information about the measles virus trial, the verdict, the statements and the effect that goes with it are misrepresented by the mainstream media as well as in the critics' scene.
It could be proven within the measles virus trial that so far no scientific literature exists that can show a flawless proof for a disease-causing measles virus. Even more, this court case confirms, through the facts of the protocols, as well as the statements of the RKI and the submitted expert opinions within the trial, that all claims about measles infection, measles vaccinations and the measles virus have no scientific basis.

What really happened, and the significance and implications of this, we show clearly, concisely and memorably in this video.

The importance of the measles trial as a precedent when it comes to compulsory vaccination as some penalties are quite drastic like parental and liberty penalties.

—-

Global assessment of national mandatory vaccination policies and consequences of non-compliance.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20312342

“3.2. Parental penalties

One country (Italy) described a penalty that potentially results in loss of parental rights (Fig. 5b). For this country, procedures are in place for parents to temporarily lose custody during parental evaluation following non-compliance with the mandate.”

“3.4. Liberty penalties

Of the 12 countries that had penalties that entailed loss of liberty (Fig. 5d), 58% (n = 7) had immediate jail time of less than six months, 17% (n = 2) had waived jail time of less than six months, 8% (n = 1) had waived jail time of at least six months, and 17% (n = 2) had immediate jail time of at least six months.”

The article is based on false statements and assumptions why to vaccinate , at the end mentions the funding and declaration of competing interests.

Highlights

•Over 100 countries have a nationwide mandatory vaccination policy requiring one or more vaccines.

•Of those, 62 countries (59%) also impose one or more penalties against individuals who do not comply.

•Educational and financial penalties are the most common types of penalties; severity varies.

•Most educational penalties deny school enrollment until vaccination requirements are met.

—-

Mandatory Childhood vaccination 

 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/mandatory-childhood-vaccination

—-