The court case against virology

No votes yet

"Dear friends, here is the recording of my very interesting conversation with Marvin Haberland. Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany. As a result of a tragedy in his family, he decided to investigate the subject of medicine. This investigation led him to virology, and he eventually discovered that the foundations of virology were based on anti-scientific misconceptions. After realizing this, Marvin decided to act. Our conversation today will focus on his upcoming trial in Germany on April 26, 2023, in Hamburg. This trial will be the second trial in history designed to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it."



The virus existence question in court: 
In this case, silence is not consent, but a sign of deliberate ignorance
deepL translate
Together with Dr. Stefan Lanka, we at NEXT LEVEL - Knowledge Re-thought are spearheading the virus existence question, genetics etc. in the Enlightenment.
Our trial tomorrow cannot and will not be like any other, because the refutation of the claim of existence of disease-causing viruses is based on our joint activities (altogether for several decades) and our tireless efforts. 
Foundation of the measles virus trial
Already during the measles virus trial, as well as in 2009 against the former head of the RKI Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Reinhard Kurth, Dr. Lanka showed that with the use of genuine and sound science, even entire pharmaceutical branches were unable to counteract anything except to pull the emergency brake, as any further public attention to this would have definitively contributed to the burial of the pseudo-scientific narrative of virology. 
"Unanimous silence"
The collective silence of all educational channels (with very few exceptions) regarding tomorrow's trial - which comes with strong backing of professional expertise - despite the knowledge of what change it could bring about, is incomprehensible to us. 
Strong facts & arguments
Our arguments are damning! Starting with the specially financed control trials commissioned by Dr Lanka, through several hundred specially conducted correspondence with the most influential virologists and virological institutions, all of which confirmed our criticism, to our comprehensive analyses of genome construction and its possibilities for manipulation, and much more.
Attention & focus
We all know how important attention and focus on this process would be because of the enormous potential for change to increase pressure and be heard. Yet there is hardly anything about it, neither in the mainstream, nor in the alternative media scene. 
We thank everyone who supports us in what we are doing, backs us up and thus gives us the strength, courage and perseverance to never give up. 
Court date: 26.04.2023 in Hamburg
 Telegram contact:
Subscribe to channel


​Work of power - entry into the refutation of the virus claim - Part 1

deepL translate( partially)

In our new format "Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 publications" we analyse and explain in detail the publications in which the claim was made that proof of a disease-causing virus had been achieved.
Since Corona_Facts kept receiving enquiries about certain publications "because these or those now claimed to have provided proof", we decided to launch exactly this new format. We will take apart all relevant publications for you and prove why no new virus has been proven. This will give you the opportunity to argue even better and at the same time learn to debunk publications that are not suitable for this proof.
In order to make it easier for you to access the explanations when reading our

explanations of the respective publication, we have created this introductory article, which provides you with the most important basics. We have tried to make this article as short as possible, but still explain the core elements.
By using the 7 core elements that virologists use to prove a virus, they have actually achieved the opposite of what was intended - on a scientific basis, they virtually disproved the virus existence claims.
In this article, the following key elements are described in detail:
How are a virus and a corona virus defined?
What does scientific work mean and what are the scientifically established rules? What are scientific control experiments and what should they look like?
The so-called cytopathic effect (CPE), which is to be induced in the laboratory, serves as the first indirect evidence.
The sequence alignment serves as the second indirect evidence.
Information on the photos of the viruses claimed to be isolated.
The PCR test - what does it detect and what is its significance? [38]
Simplified and chronological presentation of the virus existence
To start, one needs a sick person
A sample is taken from this sick person in order to analyse it
Testing of the cytopathic effect in the laboratory erroneously serves as the first indirect proof

Out of short gene sequences, a longer theoretical and fictitious line of genetic material is constructed that never occurs in reality
Photographs of phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, transport vessels, and structures referred to in the cross-section of villi which are wrongly classified as viruses
Verification of a very short sequence section < 1% based on a theoretically constructed genetic strand
The necessary and scientifically prescribed control experiments have been ignored since 1954
How are a virus and a corona virus defined?
- How are a virus and a corona virus defined? - How are sequences defined in this context?
- How do the detection methods of sequences called PCR, RT-PCR and real-time RT- PCR work?
- When may the detection of the presence of sequences in humans be passed off as evidence of the presence of a virus? - How is the existence of a virus scientifically proven?

In science, a virus is defined by its specific genetic material, which belongs only to that virus.
The hereditary material of a virus is also called the viral hereditary strand, the viral genetic molecule or its genome.
The viral genetic material of a virus contains, in sequence, the different genetic sequences for the formation of the various viral proteins known as viral genes. The genetic material of a virus can consist of one of two types of genetic molecules - DNA or RNA.
Corona viruses are defined by the fact that they consist of a specific molecule of RNA surrounded by an envelope.
The genetic material of a particular virus is defined by its precise length and the exact determination of the structure of the viral genome strand.
The composition of the genetic material of a virus is determined by the exact determination of the number and the specific sequence of the four building blocks that make up a genetic material. The four building blocks of a hereditary substance are called nucleotides.
The process of determining the specific sequence of the four building blocks of a hereditary substance is called sequencing.
The result of determining the sequence of the building blocks of a hereditary substance is called a sequence or genetic sequence.
Disease-causing viruses are defined by the fact that their sequence is unique and does not occur in healthy organisms.
In order to be able to detect and determine the presence of the genetic material of a virus, this virus must be isolated and be present in its pure form, in accordance with the laws of thought and logic that precede every science as a fundamental rule, so that cellular gene sequences are not misinterpreted as components of a virus.
The determination of the sequence of a genetic substance is only possible if it is present in the form of DNA.
In order to determine the sequence of a genetic substance that is present in the form of RNA, it must first be biochemically converted into DNA.
The process of converting a genetic substance from RNA into DNA is called "reverse transcription" and is abbreviated as "RT".
The presence and length of a hereditary substance is determined by separating it

lengthwise in an electric field. Short pieces move faster, longer pieces move slower. At the same time, in order to be able to determine the length of the genetic material to be examined, pieces of genetic material of different lengths and of known length are added. This reliable standard technique for detecting and determining the length of genetic material is known as "gel electrophoresis".
If the concentration of a certain genetic substance is too low to be detected by the technique of "gel electrophoresis", it can be multiplied at will by the technique of unlimited multiplication of DNA, called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In this way, undetectable DNA can be made visible in gel electrophoresis. This is a prerequisite for making genetic material accessible for further investigations, especially for the subsequent, decisive determination of its length and sequence. This method is also abbreviated as PCR. The inventor of the PCR technique, Karry Mullis, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this in 1993, was quick to point out that this method, developed for cleanroom analysis in computer chip factories, is very error-prone. [1] He also pointed out in his Nobel Prize speech, which is documented on the Nobel Prize Committee site, that there is no verifiable, actual scientific proof [2] that the genetic substance called the genome of HIV actually causes immunodeficiency or any of the various diseases improperly grouped together under the term "AIDS" and treated with highly toxic chemotherapy. He pointed out that there is only one consensus of scientists involved that "HIV" would cause immunodeficiency. [3]
In order to be able to amplify a DNA with the PCR technique, it is necessary to know the composition, the sequence of the DNA. A DNA can only be amplified by PCR if short, artificially produced gene fragments that correspond exactly to the sequence of the beginning and end of the DNA to be amplified bind to the beginning and end of the DNA. These short pieces of artificially produced DNA are therefore called PCR starter molecules, primers. They are on average between 24 and 30 nucleotides long (the building blocks of genetic material).
Thus, no unknown sequences and no unknown viruses can be detected with PCR. Only the determination of the sequence of a virus makes it possible to develop a PCR test for the detection of a gene sequence that originates from a virus.
What does scientific work mean and what are the scientifically established rules?
In 1998 [4], due to a large number of systematic and extensive falsifications in

infection and cancer research, the "Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice" were summarised and published in the set of rules. They were drawn up in 1997 by an international commission on behalf of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and, in accordance with the commission, were specified by universities and the German Rectors' Conference, published in print and on the Internet and made binding in Germany for all state scientific institutions and scientists. These rules and guidelines are part of each individual's employment contract.
Scientific rules and guidelines
The rules and regulations agree that scientific work is based on fundamental principles that are the same in all countries and in all scientific disciplines. Good scientific practice requires (the list is not exhaustive)
A.) to work "lege artis". Investigations must be carried out in accordance with the latest research, which requires knowledge and utilisation of current literature, the application of appropriate methods and the latest findings.
B.) Probity. It is the task of the scientist to consistently control and challenge results, including presenting findings of others that question results and hypotheses. Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental set-up are a central component in order to verify applied methods and exclude interfering factors.
C.) Quality assurance as an important feature of scientific honesty. When publishing results, methods, work steps and results must be described precisely, whereby a clear distinction must be made between the reproduction of findings and their interpretation. Findings that reject one's own hypotheses and findings and ideas of other scientists must be reported, and relevant publications by other authors and competitors must be appropriately cited.
Scientific misconduct results from violation of these three and other criteria, as well

as misrepresentation through suppression of relevant evidence, sources and texts on undesirable results without disclosure. Joint responsibility for scientific misconduct arises from joint knowledge of falsification by others, participation in the misconduct of others, co-authorship of publications containing falsification, gross neglect of supervisory duties and others, with legal consequences, especially in the case of offences against life and bodily harm. The DFG goes on to explain and warn in "Suggestions for Ensuring Good Scientific Practice"
... under 2.1 Standards of Science:
"Research as an activity is the search for new knowledge. These arise from a combination of systematics and intuition, which is always endangered by error and self-deception." "Honesty towards oneself and towards others is a basic condition for new insights - as a provisionally secured starting point for further questions (46) - to come about at all. 'A natural scientist is educated by his work to doubt everything he does and brings out, ... especially that which is close to his heart' (47)." "Dishonesty - unlike bona fide error, which according to some positions in the philosophy of science is essential for the progress of knowledge, but in any case belongs to the 'fundamental rights' of the scientist (48) - thus not only calls research into question, but destroys it." "'To become scientifically ... obsolete is ... not only the fate of us all, but the purpose of us all. We cannot work without hoping that others will get further than we have.' Max Weber's saying (49) applies to contemporaries no less than to ancestors and descendants. Thus honesty is not only a self-evident basic rule of professional scientific work, ... ; it is the foundation of science as a social system."
Were these binding scientific and codified rules of the German Research Foundation adhered to?
No, they were not.
What was disregarded was:
Quality assurance as an important characteristic of scientific honesty.

Control experiments/quality control
First control experiment
Did any of the scientists perform the control experiments that are mandatory in science to prove whether the sequences they used actually came from a virus? Has any of the scientists carried out the control experiments to prove whether the sequences they are using, which they attribute to the new virus, are not in fact sequences that arise in every metabolism, perhaps even in plants[35], or that arise more frequently in metabolism during diseases?
To put it concretely: has even one of the authors of the studies conducted control experiments to exclude
- that even with human/microbial RNA from a lung lavage of a healthy person,
- of a person with another lung disease,
- a person who has tested negative for SARS-CoV-2,
- or from such RNA from reserve samples from the time when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still unknown,
exactly the same addition of a viral genome from short RNA fragments is possible! (we will come to the "alignment" method of adding up gene sequences later).
The answer is: NO!
To date, neither the virologists of the Chinese Center of Disease Control (CCDC) nor others have undertaken these necessary control experiments, and if they have, they have failed to publish them. For these decisive control experiments, short gene sequences of the metabolism of healthy persons are subjected to the identical procedure as is done with "viral material" in order to construct a long genetic strand with the aid of a computer. This compelling control attempt - resulting from the laws of thought and the logic of virology - in order to consistently control one's own results - is not even mentioned. The moment this experiment is carried out and published, the Corona crisis can be considered to be over.

Second control experiment
The other control experiment, which results from scientific logic, is that of using the developed PCR method (real-time RT-PCR) intensively, with clinical samples from people with diseases other than those attributed to the virus, and using samples from healthy people, animals and plants, to check whether their samples do not also turn out to have tested "positive".
These further control experiments, which are logically imperative in order to validate a test procedure, i.e. to check whether it is valid and has significance, have not been carried out to date, indeed it has not even been claimed that they have been carried out. That is why the inventors and producers of these test procedures have safeguarded themselves with corresponding notes on the package inserts [5] [6], e.g. that the test is only to be used for study purposes and is not suitable for diagnostic purposes.
Third control experiment
Another control experiment, which - intentionally? - never carried out carefully, is the one that would take place in vitro (in the laboratory) with cell cultures.
None of the studies carries out a really solid negative control to ensure that the starting material, the monkey kidney cells and the chemicals and nutrient solutions used, do not already contain the "potentially infectious agent" or those short gene sequences from which the genome strand of the claimed viruses is later constructed, or their cultivation is claimed. Both the introduced agents themselves, or these in interaction with the cell material, or this alone, or all together with the isolate from the diseased tissue, could be responsible for the observed changes interpreted as viral - and for the release of short gene sequences - from which the viral genome is later constructed computationally.
For clarification, an image explaining the control experiment:
( see diagram English version misconception-part-1.pdf)

Sample material is now placed on a cell culture (e.g. Vero E6 cells / monkey kidney cells). However, the cell culture, which is to be contaminated with the allegedly infected material from the sample, is prepared in advance in a special way. This cell culture (e.g. Vero E6) is virtually poisoned by certain chemicals and antibiotics, and at the same time the nutrient solution is withdrawn, it is literally "starved". The "poisoning" is carried out out of the belief that one wants to make sure that no other causes are responsible for a desired effect. The nutrient solution is withdrawn from the cells because it is intended to make them hungry so that they will better absorb the alleged "viruses". Unfortunately, exactly these two precautions - poisoning and starvation - are to be regarded as the cause of an effect which is also equated with indirect proof of the isolation, cultivation and destructive power of a disease-causing virus. A fatal IRRTUM!
Control experiments with all combinations of the experimental set-up and logging whether this effect also occurs when a non-infected material is placed on the cell culture to be infected (e.g. Vero E6), or the cell culture is pre-treated in the same way as if it were "infected", are not carried out. Some exceptions that did exactly these controls and worked scientifically with them, revealing for all to see that this exact effect is not virus specific, are ignored (further down in the article)
In some studies control groups are simulated, these are often presented as "mock- infected cells".
( can be roughly translated as: "sham-infected cells").
These "mock-infected cells" are supposed to indicate an apparently negative control.
What some papers describe as "control samples" and "negative controls" are completely useless and do not serve to verify the methods used. "Mock-infected" can mean two things, and unless it has been documented exactly what the scientists mean by it, the "mock-infected cells" mentioned are also meaningless. Usually, "mock-infected" simply means that nothing was done with the cell culture in question. And that does not constitute a control.

In German textbooks on microbiology, such "mock-infected cells" are even often referred to as "non-infected cells".
Please remember the rules of the DFG, which we quoted to you above.
There it says under point B:
"Control experiments with equally complete disclosure of the experimental set-up are a central component in order to verify applied methods and exclude interfering factors."
If you do not find any clearly defined and comprehensible specifications in the Method or Supplements section of the publication, this procedure is highly unscientific.
In fact, virology has nothing more to offer than indirect evidence, which they only interpret as viral, i.e. "disease-causing", because those involved suffer from obsessive thinking that viruses must exist because the "prevailing opinion in biology/medicine" cannot offer any real explanations for the phenomena attributed to viruses. They do not notice their extremely unscientific actions and the self- deception and deception of others that accompany them.
If the necessary control experiments are not available, the publication cannot and must not be called scientific. It was precisely this misconduct that led to and reinforced the misguided development within virology. Among other things, processes during the death of tissue and cells in the reagent were misinterpreted as the presence of viruses and this error was not noticed. If those responsible had carried out the necessary control experiments, they would have noticed this immediately. A good analysis of this problem can be found here:
Prof. Harald Walach - What is a "scientific fact"? A small case study: The "measles trial" [7)





Translated from German with DeepL 

"A Small Victory for NEXT LEVEL - A Big One For The People !

In short: Our press spokesman Marvin Haberland won the trial as expected, in which the court dropped the case and paid the costs. 

The subtleties in this are the big win:

(a) We went into this trial without a lawyer.
No lawyer wanted to defend us by supporting our strategy. Thus, we had no legal fees either. So it can be done without.

b) Our strategy is direct and clear
It aims to clarify the lack of science in virology in court, since Paragraph 1 of the Infection Protection Act requires it.

c) We have thus shown that the measures based on an imaginary virus are not justifiable and not tenable.

d) As has been shown, there is no need for complicated strategies, no 400-page indictments. Only the basis must be attacked. 

e) The possible avalanche effect
If many people would follow our argumentation, probably either all fines would be stopped, or someone would go to the next instance, where then the scientificity has to be clarified. 

f) Our strategy and our expertise, as well as the evidence requests that could not be refuted, were known to all involved, both to the court apparatus and to the many employees whom we contacted throughout to make it clear that we were looking forward to the trial. Perhaps this was also one of the reasons why our trial was constantly postponed and unclear statements were made by staff. 

 Especially Important:

If the court, the state and others were aware of something they could have used to make a legal example of us regarding our requests for evidence, they certainly would have done so. Thus, they obviously used the easiest "escape option" and simply discontinued the proceedings."