All Episodes
Previous Next
April 29, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:05:31
Marvin Haberland's Huge COURT WIN: "Measures Based On Imaginary Viruses Are Not Justifiable"
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Our strategy is direct and clear.
It aims to clarify the lack of scientific knowledge in virology, in court, as paragraph 1 of the Infectious Protection Act requires.
We have shown that the measures based on an imaginary virus are not justifiable and are not sustainable.
Particularly important, if the court, the state, and others knew that something would allow them to make a legal example of us, with regard to our requests for evidence, they certainly would have done so.
So they obviously used the simplest escape option, and simply stopped the process.
A notice.
We got our chance.
We don't give up.
Virology will get huge problems.
We are sure.
Breaking news from today, Marvin Haberland just won in court.
Fighting tickets from back in 2020 during the insane COVID years in Germany.
By taking the argument that this is pseudoscience.
Saying that the necessary control experiments were never run.
So you can't call this science.
And this is a really interesting angle to take because they have to defend their policies.
Or that's how it should work.
Unfortunately, Marvin didn't get his day in court in that regard.
He won in the sense they threw out all these tickets.
Cleared his name.
But he said multiple times, he said this over and over.
He didn't want this thrown out, he wanted to go to Discovery.
He wanted to appeal this to higher courts if they ruled against him.
So I think he expected this to happen, but he was hoping it wouldn't.
But what makes his case so interesting is he tackled it from the side of, this is pseudoscience and you haven't proven what you said you've proven.
This virus hasn't been shown to exist, and you certainly haven't characterized it and shown that masks are effective, let alone should be forced.
Alright, so this is from a press release from Next Level, which is Martin's organization, on their Telegram channel, and I'll put the link in the description.
It's called, The Virus Existence Question in Court.
In this case, silence is not consent, but a sign of conscious ignorance.
Together with Dr. Lanka, We rethought and represent the spearhead on the question of viral existence, genetics, etc.
in the Enlightenment.
Our court trial tomorrow cannot and will not be like any other, because the reputation of the existence claim of disease-causing viruses is based on our joint action for several decades in total, and our tireless commitment
The Basis The Measles Virus Process Already within the measles virus process, as well as in 2009 under the former head of the RKI Prof. Dr. Reinhardt Kurth, Dr. Lonka pointed out, with the use of real and well-founded scientific knowledge, even entire pharmaceutical branches could do nothing but pull the emergency brake.
Since any further public attention would have finally contributed to burying the pseudo-scientific narrative of virology.
Unanimous silence.
The collective silence of all information channels, with very few exceptions.
In relation to tomorrow's trial, which is accompanied by strong backing of professional competence, despite the knowledge of what change this could bring about, is incomprehensible to us.
Strong facts and arguments.
Our arguments are incriminating.
Beginning with the specially financed control tests, which were carried out by Dr. Lanka.
To several hundred specially conducted correspondences with the most influential virologists and virological institutions, all of which confirmed our criticism.
To our comprehensive analysis of genome construction and its manipulation possibilities and much more.
Attention and focus.
We all know how important the attention and focus on this process would be due to the enormous potential for change to increase the pressure and hearing.
Nevertheless, there's hardly anything about it, neither in the mainstream nor in the alternative media scene.
And then here's the message they put out today after their victory in court.
A small victory for next level, a big one for the people.
Our spokesman Marvin Taberland won the process as expected, in which the court dropped the case and assumed the costs.
The subtleties in it are the great victory.
We went into this process without a lawyer.
No lawyer wanted to defend us by supporting our strategy.
So we didn't have any legal fees.
So it works without them.
Our strategy is direct and clear.
It aims to clarify the lack of scientific knowledge in virology, in court, as paragraph 1 of the Infectious Protection Act requires.
We have shown that the measures based on an imaginary virus are not justifiable and are not sustainable.
As has been shown, it does not require complicated strategies.
No 400 page justification or brief.
Only the basis must be attacked.
The possible avalanche effect.
If many people followed our reasoning, either all fines would be stopped, or someone would go to the next instance where the scientific nature would then have to be clarified.
Our strategy and expertise As well as the non-rebuttable motions of evidence, we're well known to all involved, both the judicial apparatus and the many staff who we contacted throughout, to make it clear that we looked forward to the trial.
Perhaps this was also one of the reasons why our process was constantly being postponed and unclear statements were being made.
Particularly important, if the court, the state, and others knew that something would allow them to make a legal example of us, with regard to our requests for evidence, they certainly would have done so.
So they obviously used the simplest escape option, and simply stopped the process.
A notice.
We got our chance.
We don't give up.
Virology will get huge problems.
We are sure.
It's also very suspicious when the government cut this case off, they didn't allow Marvin to go to discovery, which would have allowed him to question and demand evidence of the government as to what evidence they were making these obscene decisions based off.
So here's some clips from Marvin's interviews over the past few months as he built up to this case.
This case has been years in the making.
Marvin got his tickets back in 2020.
And he's been trying to go through the process and get them to defend themselves and make actual truth claims.
But they shy away from it every single time it seems.
Check this out.
I can very briefly say what is the topic of the case.
So I'm saying that the measures in Germany are based on the law of infectious disease and the law of infectious disease in Germany states already in its first paragraph
That every virologist, every university, every authority has to follow the scientific rules, that everything which is based on this law has to be supported by the status quo of the scientific method and scientific technique.
And I can, I demonstrate in front of the court that this is not the case in virology because there are no scientific controls documented and no scientific controls performed in the publications, which is already enough to show that this is not the status quo of science, because in the exact sciences, it's very important to perform scientific controls.
Of course, no one would disagree with that.
Yeah, okay.
And so that's what makes this different is everybody else is suing like, well, these are too harsh or it's, it's, it's stomping on my constitutional rights or whatever.
Right.
This is really what we've been saying the heart of the matter that there is no virus and proven to exist.
And that's because you, the virologist, have failed to do controls.
So therefore, the whole thing is invalid.
Yeah, you say it correctly.
Because if you go to the court and say, oh, I don't know, measure A or B or C or the vaccine or whatever is against my human rights, yes, okay, but the court can always find argumentation or always say that if they balance but the court can always find argumentation or always say that if they balance the health of the society against the individual right, then okay, they can But by pointing to that
core question, this fundamental question, they cannot escape so easily.
And this is really pinpointing them on the law of infectious disease, because it states that it has to be supported by the latest like status quo of science.
And it's basically a different approach that I'm doing than all the others before me.
Right, which is exactly the approach that I and others have advocated from the get-go.
I moved on to virology and I found out about Stefan Lanker's work.
So basically first was a measles virus and you know the early scientific practices or unscientific practices of Enders and Peebles in 1954.
And then I also, you know, researched And Robert Koch, like from the really early beginnings of germ theory and, you know, vaccinations.
And yeah, and then from there I moved on to HIV.
I bought the book, I have it here, the virus mania book from, you know, Engelbrecht and Köhnlein and other authors today.
Which got me very interested in HIV also.
And then I discovered there is a pattern in virology.
It's always the same.
So measles, HIV, SARS-CoV-1 or SARS-CoV-1 from 2002.
These are repeating patterns, which I found very interesting.
And then when COVID or Corona came up, I immediately did the research.
I remember in January 2020, when this came up, I went to GISAID and other, you know, platforms where they upload the genomes.
And I tried to figure out, okay, maybe this time they did the correct isolation, the correct scientific procedures.
And I figured out, okay, this is the same like, you know, with the swine flu, with the bird flu, with the SARS-1.
So from very early on, I was interested again.
I decided to start to be more active in speaking out.
And do work in this field to spread the misconceptions and the scientific fraud.
I thought this was important because many people don't know about this and I felt responsible to share.
First of all, I got motivated to do it basically also by Stefan Lanker, who had a court case in 2015 about measles virus.
It's a little different strategy than mine, but I mean pretty similar.
And he was saying in the beginning of COVID, OK, you know, people of Germany, if you get these fines because you're not wearing a mask or because you are meeting with other people during the lockdown and so on, just, you know, he laid out the basic strategy how to yeah, go to court.
And what I did is, yeah, I just didn't wear the mask.
I had like a mask zone directly in front of my house.
So I couldn't even exit my door without wearing a mask, which I didn't want to do.
And after receiving the fine, I just objected it.
And I sent the court a specific abstract from the law, which is basically the first paragraph in Germany of the infectious disease law, which says that every virologist, every institution, authority, has to work according every institution, authority, has to work according to the status quo of science, scientific practice.
And I am basically saying that in virology, this is not at all the case.
They are not following the scientific method and not any sort of scientific method that is required.
And I sent proof to the court from several different, you know, Freedom of Information Acts, which are myself, I sent one to the University of Melbourne in Australia, and several others.
So, yeah, my argumentation is basically the law is not fulfilled.
And these are my proofs.
Yeah, and this is why I'm not willing to pay the fine.
Basically, this is just a strategy.
And we will see how this goes.
It will be on the 26th of April after my first invitation got cancelled.
Originally, it was scheduled the 19th of October last year, but then I received a cancellation letter because the judge
Apparently got sick and then now I have the second invitation so we will see and there are many others that do this in Germany so I have already consulted three other people with the same strategy and all three of these cases got closed so basically the people didn't have to pay anything but the court did not really
You know, issue like an official statement.
They just closed the case, you know.
So, what I want to achieve is an official statement by the court.
Because if they close my case, basically I cannot do anything about it.
I have to accept it.
But it has not the effect that I would like to have.
Basically, to have an official statement.
Yes, indeed.
Paragraph one of the infectious law of diseases is broken.
Virologists are not working according to the scientific method.
This would be my goal.
Or something else they could say, which is also possible.
They could say that, yeah, the law states that they should work according to the scientific method, but they don't have to.
If the court says something like this and I have to pay the fine, it's okay for me.
But then I have the official statement, virologists are not obliged to work scientifically, which would be fine.
I mean this is just about our goal to share the situation how it is.
So let's talk a little bit more about the main problem of virology.
So people who are completely new to this, they can understand better the lack of scientific method behind it.
So let's talk about all of this, about controls and about your freedom of information requests.
Yeah, sure.
So basically in science how it works is you observe something in nature and then you come up with a hypothesis on how this could work and then you try to come up with an experiment
To test this hypothesis, and if the experiments support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis turns into a theory, and the theory gets tested over and over and over again, and all experiments support it.
But if the experiment, the outcome is against the hypothesis, then you falsify the hypothesis.
Your hypothesis is fair.
You say that you get sick from some viruses infecting you coming from the outside.
Infectious diseases are being spread.
The arguments should be that you bring together sick and unhealthy animals or people and you show that you can really transmit this or you try to extract these particles, these viruses, and then you take them and put them in the food or you spread them in the air of the animals or of the humans and you show by doing that
That you can replicate the symptoms.
That has never been done in virology.
What they are doing instead of doing it in the way I just stated is Try to come up with some sort of excuse.
They say that they cannot really do it in the correct way because the viruses are too small or too little in quantity or they only can live inside the cell and so on.
So they try to find excuses how why they should cannot extract the particle.
And then they do some experiments in the lab.
So they never do it in like a real in vivo.
They only do it in vitro in the lab.
They take cell cultures and then they mix a lot of different chemicals, antibiotics and other substances together.
You know, fetal bovine serum, cell cultures from monkey kidney cells and so on.
So they have a big brew of different components and then they observe that this cell culture basically disintegrates or dies.
And they say, okay, this is the proof for a virus.
But this is impossible scientifically because there are so many variables.
They are the toxic antibiotics, the fetal bovine serum.
Then they take off the fetal bovine serum, so they remove the nutrition.
Then there are different other chemicals involved, the trypsin sometimes, and several different steps along the way.
So it's impossible to say that the result is caused by a virus.
And what is on top of that unscientific, and everyone can understand this, they don't have the control experiment.
So they are just running all these steps and they are doing what is called like circular reasoning and They don't have any control, so they are trying to find causative results, cause and effect, but it's impossible to do it.
This is just a correlation.
They observe that something happens, but they are not really using the scientific method to come up with the cause-effect relation.
The control experiment would be, for the viewers, you do the exact same experiment, You do the cell culture experiment with the chemicals, same antibiotics, same steps, everything the same, but you don't add the so-called virus.
This would be the only variable that should be different from the other experiment.
And the outcome then should be different.
If the virus would exist and would be the cause of this cell culture disintegration, the so-called cytopathic effect, then, only then, you could prove that this is the determining variable.
But, of course, as they never have isolated the virus in the first place, they cannot even do this control experiment.
It's impossible.
And, yeah, this is the big scientific problem.
I am willing to say that on some levels this is also fraud, because they know, because we asked them, the virologists, most of them know that the control experiments are missing and are important.
They are trying to find excuses why they are not doing them, so they know exactly they should do them.
It's not that they are unconscious.
So, yeah, I can say that this is basically fraud.
Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for many virologists, they know exactly about this issue.
Yeah.
So, in the report, you are going to point at this exactly, the lack of controls.
Yes, the center of the argumentation is the lack of control and this is the reason why the first paragraph which states that everything should be done according to the scientific method, the recent scientific techniques and so on.
And we have the German Association of Science which says that In order to work according to the scientific method, everything has to be controlled, right?
Every experimental step has to be controlled and so on.
So this is very easy to then demonstrate to the judge that it has not been done in virology ever.
And I have many proofs.
I mean, I did the Not only me, many people have done that.
But for my case, I have asked the University of Melbourne, the Daughtry Institute, which is their virology institute basically.
And they have published one of the first SARS-CoV-2 isolation publications.
It was the first publication outside of China.
And I asked them very early on, If they did the control experiments for every step, including the genome sequencing, and they clearly answered that they did not do it, very clearly, no excuse, very, very straightforward.
They said, no, we didn't do it for any of the steps.
And then I asked them why I am, why did you not perform the controls?
And they told me very, very straightforward again, oh, we didn't have the resources to do it.
We were just focusing on the positive culture.
And we had to, you know, work quickly.
And we had no time, basically, this was the answer.
So everyone can see that this is extremely unscientific.
And the German Association of Science Even clearly states, quoting, I'm quoting them basically the day, say that nobody should like issue any sort of scientific paper unless they have followed all the scientific steps, even if economic factors, you know, monetary factors or the economic pressure is high.
So you should not publish anything for Following all the scientific steps.
And I think everyone would agree.
So, yeah, this is as a proof, as a very good proof, because usually if you ask virologists around the world, if you ask the official institutions, CDC, RKI, Pasteur Institute and so on, it's very unlikely to get a straightforward answer like this.
I was very lucky to get this straightforward answer.
And yeah, this is what I'm using as a main proof, but then I use other proofs as well.
So he says, the premises of your questions are false.
It isn't true that scientists claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists solely based on defining of pieces of the virus.
It is not true that they never purified a sample prior to inoculation in the cell culture, okay?
It is not true that they have only sequenced pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
They have sequenced its whole genome, which independently from the isolation of the virus in cell culture is proof of the virus' existence.
And this is not correct.
They have not sequenced the whole genome.
They have sequenced the whole cell culture.
But from there, they had to use computer programs, namely Trinity or Megahit or all the others, And they had to calculate the whole genome.
No one actually sequenced the whole genome.
They sequenced the whole cell culture, the whole mess.
And because they don't know what parts are apparently viral or not, like supposedly viral or not, they have to calculate that.
And then they get gaps In those results, and then they need to use so called gap filling algorithms to create the whole genome.
So what the guy is saying here is totally wrong.
In other words, what you're saying, so interestingly, I think the word sequence is the wrong word for what they're doing.
They're creating, they're aligning it or assembling a genome, not sequencing a genome.
Yeah, they are sequencing the cell culture.
That is correct.
They're sequencing the RNA or the DNA from a cell culture.
Yes.
Not from any particle called a virus.
Exactly.
And the only reason why they need to run the computer programs for getting the whole genome is because they have not obtained the virus in a purified state.
Otherwise, if they had the virus in a purified state, separated from everything else, then they could sequence the virus in a whole approach without using any tools then they could sequence the virus in a whole approach without using any They wouldn't need to do that.
They could just sequence it with gel electrophoresis, whatever.
But because they don't have the virus, they are using the computer algorithms.
Right.
And they never find, even then, correct me if I'm wrong, do they find the whole genome when they do the assembly or not?
Well, they create a genome and then they would need to prove that this whole genome actually exists.
And secondly, they would need to prove that it caused disease.
So, only to calculate something is not proof, first of all, that it even exists.
And second of all, that it causes disease.
It could exist, why not?
But then you show me please that it causes also disease and that they'd never do it.
Got it.
Okay, we're going to look at this.
This is one of the main studies that he uses and one of your main claims is they don't do controls when they do these experiments.
Yeah.
Here they have four lower respiratory tract samples, including bronchial alveolar lavage fluid collected from pneumonia.
Seven were collected from patients in Beijing with pneumonia of known cause, and these serve as control samples.
Extraction of nucleic acids from clinical samples, including uninfected cultures that serve as negative controls, was performed by all this and tested for viruses and bacteria using PCR.
And that's the program.
So why isn't this a valid control?
Yeah, if you actually download the whole publication, they even show a picture of that, what they call mock infection.
So why is it not a correct scientific control?
There you can see what they did in the methods part.
And they only explain for the standard procedure what they did, but they don't document the scientific control.
They will not tell you what exactly they did for the mock infection.
And mock infection is not a defined, you know, self-explanatory statement.
Because mock infection could mean that you have a cell culture by itself, you add nothing, you just leave it there.
Mock infection could mean you have a cell culture and you add the same ingredients and the same antibiotics and everything the same.
Or a muck infection could mean that you have a cell culture and you add slightly different chemicals to it.
We don't know.
We don't know at all.
And we don't even know what they add to that cell culture in terms of samples.
Do they add samples?
Do they add samples from healthy people?
Do they add samples from sick people with other symptoms?
Do they add no samples at all?
We don't know all of that.
And in science, for the scientific method, it is important that you document all the steps because other scientists need to verify and validate and replicate, be able to replicate the experiment in the future.
So just saying in the publication that you had done a mock control is not enough.
You need to document this is a scientific rule.
You need to document what did you do in that mock?
What is the mock control?
What is it made of?
What are the steps?
And this is not documented in the whole publication.
Right.
You know, interestingly, here actually is a, I got from Science Direct, a definition of what a mock infected is supposed to be.
Control use in infection experiments.
Two specimens use one that is infected with the virus of interest and the other is treated in the same way except without the virus.
Sometimes a non-virulent strain.
So this is what we're meant to believe is a mock infection, which is not, I would say, just a science definition.
It's also the definition from common sense, right?
Exactly, yeah, exactly.
So you have one experiment where you have cell culture and you put whatever the snot or the lavage That you think has the virus.
And in the next culture, every single thing is the same.
The nutrients the same, the antibiotics the same, the fetal calf serum is the same.
Everything is success, except you took the virus out of the sample.
Exactly.
And this, of course, they haven't done because that would mean that they purified the virus and they haven't done it.
So in this case, it could even mean that the mock infected cell culture has no sample at all.
And that would not be a good control because all the other sequences inside the patient sample would be missing.
It would not just be the independent variable, Right.
So let me just flesh that out for a minute.
all the other variables in the sample, in the human samples, would be missing as well.
So it is not, even if they did it like this, it would not be appropriate.
Right.
So let me just flesh that out for a minute.
What you're saying is, so first of all, if you're going to do a cell culture with a sample of lavage fluid from a sick person, which allegedly has the virus, nobody would claim that that only thing in there is the virus.
There's proteins and dead cells and enzymes and nucleic acid pieces, etc.
So, you have many variables in there.
So, if you just, in the mock infection, don't put a sample from a sick person, or even if you put a sample from a healthy person, you have no way of knowing which of those variables Correct.
Yes.
the cytopathic effect or will show up in the final assembly of the genome.
Correct.
Is that what you're saying?
Yes.
Yeah.
And as far as we can see, this paper certainly didn't take the virus out of the sample.
Correct.
And in fact, we don't actually know what they did because they didn't say it, which means this by definition can't be reproduced.
Therefore, it can't be science. - Yes.
Fully correct.
Okay.
So I think it's clear this is not an example of appropriate controls and I would just point out just because you use the word control doesn't mean it's true, right?
You can say a lot of things but that's not what science is about.
That's right.
You know they just point these arrows towards particles in their pictures and we don't know what these actually are because nobody has characterized them, nobody has taken them out and analyzed them, nobody has done transmission experiments with those pieces.
It's just a picture out of a cell culture and that's it.
These particles can be found in every monkey kidney cell culture Which is stressed in terms of adding antibiotics, removing nutrition, like decreasing fetal bovine serum and so on.
You can create these particles.
We don't know what they are.
They could be artifacts, they could be, you know, spore-like things, exosomes, whatever.
There are a thousand different theories, but it doesn't matter.
We don't know what they are because nobody has taken them out and analyzed them.
So it's like taking a picture out of the universe and pointing to a star and saying that star is full of viruses.
Whatever.
It's totally bullshit.
Doesn't make sense.
I think for the viewers, it is just important to know that you can take these pictures from every cell culture, no matter if you add a sample, if you add no sample, if you add a sample from a sick person, if you add a sample from a healthy person, it doesn't really matter.
You can always stress the cell culture in a way and always add the ingredients you need to create those pictures.
It's totally independent from a virus or whatever, it doesn't really matter.
It is a very unnatural environment.
It's a lab experiment which is very, very sensitive.
So, of course, it's totally manipulatable.
The lab scientist can do whatever he wants with the cell culture.
He can create CPE after one day, he can create CPE after one week.
It is up to him, right?
Yeah.
Right, and when you look into, you know, well, so they took lung cancer and they looked for viruses and they say there's no CPE, and you find that they didn't stress the cultures in the same way as they do with the so-called viral cultures.
Yeah, there is also an important point here.
If you take lung cells, cell lines, the stress that you need to add in terms of chemicals, in terms of temperature and other variables, parameters, might be different than in monkey kidney cells, for instance.
So, every cell culture has a different capacity to survive or to stay alive when stressed.
Some need streptomycin, some need penicillin, some need a mix of both, some need 5% or even less 1% fetal bovine syndrome to show these cytopathic effects.
It differs from the tissue which you take.
Some tissue is very, very resistant and some tissue is very, very weak and disintegrates immediately.
And you cannot even... You will never succeed to keep it alive for two days.
Some tissue is just impossible to run these experiments on.
That's why they decided So many years ago to take the viro exactly six cells because it's so nice.
They can so greatly manipulate them.
They can let them living for one week.
They can kill them after three days.
It's perfectly for the virologist to play.
It's the perfect playground.
Right.
And unless you do control every step of the way, you never know which parameter actually caused the death.
Yes.
I can say from like 100% I am 100% sure that nobody, no virologist has ever published a control for a genome sequence assembly.
They never control this step.
And this is also something I got for my court case.
I filed a Freedom of Information Act from the University of Melbourne, from the Doherty Institute, which is... They published one of the first studies of SARS-CoV-2 out of China.
This is a question that I asked them is if they performed controls for the genome sequencing method.
So, have you, have they performed sequencing with a negative sample, or have they performed sequencing with another reference genome, for instance, measles or HIV or whatever, or, you know, any sort of controls and none of them have performed and they even admitted, all of them admitted Walk us through how you would do that.
Okay, you would first take a sample from a healthy person.
Okay, the ideal one would be you would take out the virus from the sample and give it to the, you know, to the further steps, but obviously that is not possible.
So the best we can do is take a sample from a healthy person or from a person that we say is healthy and has no virus.
Then we culture it, like the virologists do, and then we, you know, run the sequencing and we perform the steps here.
So we basically receive from the sequencing all the little parts, the RNA sequences, and then we assemble them in the same way that is performed with the first experiment.
So we use the same template.
We use the Wuhan template.
In that case, they use this one.
We use the same chemicals.
We use the same parameters in the software in Megahit or Trinity.
are the names of these tools that have been used.
So we use all the same and we try to find the same solution, so to say.
We try to find the same sequence.
And in the case that we cannot find it using the same steps, then we can say that the control did not falsify the positive culture.
But they are not doing that at all.
So they are just sequencing the positive sample, the positive culture.
Let me see if I got that right so that we can all understand that.
So at no point then, having done the culture, has the existence of the virus thus far been proven, right?
We know that.
So then they take the results of the culture and mix it with some chemicals, produce a RNA library, which is little pieces of RNA, and then they assemble those into the genome, which is based on aligning that to a predetermined template that they told the computer to align it according to this template.
Yeah, and the template is also a computer alignment.
Right.
That's also important, yeah.
And what you're saying is anybody who claims to be scientific would do the same thing with what I would say is the following samples.
One with nothing, nothing added to the culture.
Then something added that's from a healthy person.
Then something added from somebody who has, say, influenza or measles.
And then the fluid from somebody with, say, lung cancer.
Yeah.
And maybe some other ones.
I mean, you would try to do every possible control, and then you would do the same steps.
You would culture it.
use the same chemicals, break it up into pieces, tell the computer to align that or assemble that according to this template.
And if in no cases did you get the same assembled genome, that would certainly strengthen your case that it was only from the culture from the person with COVID.
Yeah, correct.
Yeah, very good.
Good explained.
And also, you can change the template as another control.
You can say, try to align measles, try to align HIV, try to align Zika, whatever.
So, SARS-1.
So, if you find, if you are successful in reproducing other templates in the alignment process, that of course also
And what you're saying, as far as you know, and it sounds like you know, and this is the same conclusion that I've come to and Andy's come to and Mark has come to and Stefan and Mike Stone and Mike Donio and a bunch of other people, Stefano, Kevin, is that we can't find one
Yeah, and this is a very, very important point.
any of those controls, let alone all of them.
Yeah, and this is a very, very important point, maybe the most important point, because why?
For the cytopedic effect, there is some disagreement.
There are some virologists saying, oh, we have the mock controls and there were no cytopedic effects, and okay, it's kind of a mess.
But in this case, in the genome sequencing control, no virologist has ever claimed to have done the control experiments.
I have never encountered a virologist claiming that.
In all of my FOIs, in all of my requests, I have never encountered a single virologist claiming that.
So here, there is no disagreement.
Every virologist agrees that nobody has published a valid scientific control for the genome sequencing methodology.
There is one case, I think you did it in a podcast lately, there was one scientist from France, Mietz, from the University Hospital of Mietz, who said that after publication they did some random Controls, and they found positive samples through this steps as well.
But this is of course ridiculous because you have to do it before you publish the paper not afterwards in right you know.
So, but this already also, you know, of course.
um supports our our case that we are making because they produced positive uh you know samples positive results in their negative control so so what i've heard when when asked and i i would love to hear what you've heard they say well if you do a a
if you try to sequence which means assembly from a uh sample from a lung cancer patient the pcr probes don't anneal to anything and so you don't get anything to assemble uh and And so why should we do that?
Well, the truth is that they are not just sequencing the sample and starting to assemble it.
The truth is they are adding many steps afterwards.
They are running PCR, they are amplifying the material, they add other chemicals to it, they run another PCR, they run very dirty cycles.
in metagenomic sequencing approaches.
So it's not true that if they would treat the original material, the cell culture, from a negative control in the exact same way, running PCR prior to sequencing it and so on, you
As and adding like other material to it, like, you know, human lung fluid, whatever you could, you can certainly find the same results as proven by Stefan in it's in his, I think it's the second or third control experiment.
Yeah, where, where he showed that.
And I mean, what the what the virologist said just from France, you know, is, of course, proving that this is true, because they found actually the same sequence in the negative control.
So I'm not aware of any virologist who really disagrees with that.
Yeah.
Well, even if that, you know, my response to that statement, well, we wouldn't get any annealing, we wouldn't get any amplification with our probes, then fine, why don't you publish that?
Just do the same steps and show that you don't get anything and that would be a good control.
But they don't do that.
And then they just say, in theory, it won't work.
So we're not going to do it.
Yeah, it's unscientific, of course, because it's also the same reason why they are not publishing the exact steps of the mock infection, because they know if they publish the steps, the full documentation, of course, they will not be able to publish the paper claiming they found the virus, because it would just be ridiculous.
Everyone would immediately see that the control is invalid.
Right.
So basically, Next Level is like a joint venture.
We are basically coming out of two different telegram groups or channels that have evolved during COVID.
And we are now working together with, you know, different scientists, doctors, We are engineers like I am, mathematicians, computer scientists and so on.
So we are quite a diverse team and our main focus is basically health topics.
so we try to we try to dig deep into virology, germ theory medications disease in general biology and so on Our focus is the scientific area.
We try to be very scientific in our articles and our work.
We try to read through papers and explain to the audience why a certain paper or why a certain scientific document is methodically Not good?
Or what is the problem with it?
Why is it not scientific?
We are very passionate about this.
We don't want a future for our families and friends and children and so on that is continuing with this craziness basically.
With these pandemics over and over again.
With you know vaccinations and medical drugs and so on that is all going against basically that our health and is not based on science.
This people really should understand that this is not.
Not really scientific.
If you take your time, you know, some hours, weeks, and you really try to figure it out, you will quickly understand that this is not based on science.
This is based on Yeah, on fraud, sometimes on misinterpretation.
Okay, misinterpretation very often due to lacking control experiments, they misinterpreted the results they get.
They don't know what exactly is cause and effect because they don't have any controls.
So they just take it for granted.
And this is also unscientific.
Yeah, and basically, we don't want this.
And I'm sure that there is a high High probability that COVID was not the last and will not be the last pandemic.
Basically what I, this is my personal opinion, what I observed in the last 20 years is like the defense industry and the pharmaceutical industry are changing their presence over and over again.
So sometimes there is a war.
Like right now.
Then the defense industry is running their profits.
And then there is like a cyclical point.
And then there is a pandemic or some other sort of health event for a couple of years.
Then the pharmaceutical industry is again leading.
Then there is again a tipping point.
There is another terrorist attack or war.
So basically this is what is going on since quite a long time.
At least from my own research, I can say that I'm not really sure that these events are really happening randomly.
So there is a certain pattern behind it.
And in the virology, it's very easy to see that the pattern is not based on science.
And this is very, very easy to To prove.
And for me, this is good because in the other topics, it's quite difficult to come up with, you know, the real reason behind it.
But in virology, it's very easy to do it.
I can do it in five minutes.
And it's so easy to prove and to show to everyone that it is flawed and why it is flawed.
And this is why I also engage in that kind of area.
Rather than in other topics because it's so clear.
But I wanted to talk with you about this court case, Stefans.
And what do you know about it and the consequences that it had and how the strategy differs from yours now?
Yeah, that's an important question because this court case really was the start of many things, I would say.
So back in 2015 and before 2015, there were certain politicians who wanted to introduce a vaccination mandate for measles.
And Stefan Lanker was contacted by certain politicians.
Politicians and state secretaries to prove scientifically, to show that this is not an effective measure against measles.
And he had to choose a different strategy than I do now, because there was no fine or no COVID fine catalog or something like that.
So he had to come up with the civil case.
And for that, he came up with the idea to publish prize money for the proof of measles.
And so basically, people could send him publications or proof.
for the measles virus and he was offering 100 000 euros I think to the correct scientific proof.
I did it in order to prevent the measles virus obligatory vaccination in Germany and I even was asked by a former minister of justice to come up with actual results demonstrating that there is no proof for the existence of a virus.
So the vaccine can be useful and can only harm Can only hum and so this is what why I offered a hundred thousand euro and now the first important point for a publication of the Robert Koch Institute.
This is the German highest health authority governed directly by the by the German government and they are doing the basic research in infectious diseases.
But I knew they have no single publication at this time on measles virus.
So it was easy for me to offer a hundred thousand euro to demonstrate they have no publication.
But for 10 years or more than 10 years at this time already, they were forced by law, the law of infectious diseases, to carry out scientific research on the measles virus, but they didn't.
They only came up with photographs saying, look, this is the measles virus, but it was without a scientific, it wasn't within a scientific publication.
When people ask them, hey, where this is published?
No, it's internal material and we don't give it out of our hands.
And this is not science, you know.
And then a doctor, a young doctor came and he claimed the money.
He sent Stefan publications and Stefan said, no, sorry. - Okay.
There are no scientific proofs in these publications.
They are not according to my rules that I published.
So basically, this guy who sent the publications to Stefan Manka then went to court and opened a court case because he wanted He wanted to have the €100,000 prize money.
And Stefan accepted, of course, the challenge.
He went to the court and then there were, you know, different steps.
First level, then the higher level of the court.
And finally, he won this case.
And what is very interesting, first of all, in our Next Level website, you can find a A big publication on all the details what happened exactly and with a lot of information.
It's a very, very interesting case.
I think it's a historical case.
And basically what is interesting is there are the official publications of the court protocols that everyone can download.
There are the official publications and also the official sentence of the courts, of the higher court.
And it's very interesting to read those because the court invited a top virologist from Germany as a witness, a scientific witness.
He really made some very interesting statements in front of the court.
basically said that it's not possible to prove anything in virology and that the use of computer programs to come up with a genome sequencing is not a proof which every virologist is using all viral genomes are exclusively calculated by software.
They are all computer models, basically.
said in front of this court case that it's not approved for anything and you know he came up with a lot of different other very interesting statements so you should really read that if you're interested in that basically the difference is Stefan went through those civil route with the 100 000 euro price money whereas I am going
I was fined by the by the state of Hamburg and I am just objecting this this fine so this is the difference and the the argumentation is the same as It's the same, sorry.
It's just the civil versus the, how to say, I think the fine state route.
It's a different court, but the argumentation is very similar.
I did this intentionally sometimes.
I went in front of the police without the mask to get the fine because this is the only way to enter in this process.
My goal was to get it as quickly as possible in early 2020 or like in the middle of the year and then also at the end of the year 2020.
And then it takes a long time until you get the fine and then it takes a very long time until you get the invitation.
So from the time I was going there without the mask and being controlled by the police to the court case is more than two years difference.
When I got this fine, I wanted to prepare myself for the court case because I knew already that I was going to court eventually.
So I sent this Freedom of Information request to the University of Melbourne, to the Daughtry Institute, which is basically their virology institution.
And all the authors of this Australian SARS-CoV-2 isolation paper are based at this institute.
And what I asked them is if they, you know, carried out controls for the cell culture for the Cytopathic effect basically, and also for the genome sequencing.
And because they apply the genome sequencing method to calculate basically to mathematically model a genome.
And I couldn't find any scientific control in the publication.
I could find that they had like a mock infected cell culture, but then they didn't really explain what they were doing.
Sorry, can I just ask about that?
Because I'm really interested in this.
So what did they say about the mock?
Because we've had, we've done FOIA's Freedom of Information Act requests as well to lots of institutions.
And you know, Christine Massey, of course, she's done this too, to find out what are mock controls.
And most of the time they're not what people think.
Is that what, what did they say to you?
Okay.
I will first, uh, explain what I think that many times what happens.
So mock controls will just be a cell line, which, uh, will be untreated.
Like they, they just, uh, let it there and like, you know, provide nutrition to it, but they don't really add any chemicals to it.
And they provide, they don't add any, um, Human, you know, sample or whatever, they just leave it there untreated.
So what I asked is, I read in the methods part of the publication, which kind of chemicals, antibiotics and steps they were doing in the infected cell culture.
So I listed all of them in my question and asked, have you done exactly this procedure with the negative control?
They were kind of saying that they define a negative control or a scientific control to be an experiment where you really remove only one variable, the independent variable, but all the other variables have to be the same, which is basically the correct answer.
But then I asked if they can provide me with the documentation of this experiment so I can really Well, that's it.
This is their answer.
And for the other question, if they used negative controls for their genome sequencing, I asked two questions.
One is,
▲
Export Selection