Here I will provide an English translation from an audio recording that was made during the measles trial in Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court) with Dr. Lanka, where one can read what the judge said, which is a bit different from what was written down in their ruling. This audio recording was given later to Feli Popescu who was also present at the trial and my translation was made from her Romanian translation of the audio recording.
She didn't make the audio recording, she received it from someone who was also at the trial who made it. She listened to the audio recording and made a Romanian translation of it that she published. The audio recording itself has not been published but I have it on my computer. Mind you that it is in German.
Jamie, I just reply for the sake of everyone that may read these comments. It wasn't allowed to do an audio recording during the trial where the person who recorded it anyway do not want it released which is understandable. It's too bad tho but the translation that I've made has been verified by two people so at least we got an accurate transcript of what the judge said.
What should be noted here for people that haven't read the translation yet is that what the judge said differ a bit from what was written down into the ruling. The reason for this was maybe due to the judge feeling pressured to try and downplay things due to the massive importance and ramifications. Lanka writes a bit about this in the article below that is about what happened during the first and second trial.
Cracking article, it's good to see Feli getting a shout out in the comments section, her blog on the trial (C.W. Romanian idiums, e.g; "he who eats the donut, laughs longest!) is an entertaining read.
In Lanka's "measles challenge" he mentioned the "Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG)" as a prerequisete to be satisfied in order for the prize to be claimed, this is a set of rules drawn up in 1997 by the German Research Foundation (DFG) following fraud involving research money used to fund vaccines, it obliges all researchers who receive Government funding to comply with; "good scientific practice". In 1998 it was passed into law that all scientists and institutions that receive state funding were obliged to adhere to these rules in their work and in the preparation of reports or, put simply; publications without documented execution of control tests may not be presented as "scientific".
The latest version of these rules is in the link below;
"Given that Christine Massey has confirmed with her FOIA requests that ALL Viruses in every UN country are ONLY isolated in Cell Culture, we have falsified ALL virus isolation..."
The FOIs are from 40 different countries; I do not understand the reference to "UN countries". More importantly, none of the responses confirmed that any alleged "virus" had been isolated in any way whatsoever. As we well know, cell cultures don't result in anything being isolated/purified and they don't show that the alleged particles even exist let alone qualify as "viruses". The institutions were challenged to provide/cite studies where the alleged particles had been isolated/purified from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement (in accordance with the "virus" hypotheses and claims that they exist in "hosts") and they all failed. Hence they confessed/demonstrated that they have no way of logically/scientifically demonstrating that these alleged infectious particles exist at all let alone cause any symptoms.
Great… thanks for clarifying it was 40 countries. I assumed it would be the UN as all of the scamdemic was lead by the WHO which is a branch of the UN.
Here are the parts of mitochondria and ribosomes in the virus isolate "Virus Isolation...We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation...We extracted nucleic acid from isolates...All the remaining contigs mapped to either host cell rRNA or mitochondria". 🤣
“But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed.” That’s sounds like a successful negative control to me? Please explain since I don’t understand your point than.
the fact the negative control displayed CPE means it failed. Of course it can be distinguished, it has completely different cells added to it from the sample for a start.
Would you mind to expand on that a bit ? If I read that correctly they put a different agent in the medium for the control sample, which produced different kinds of CPE. Which took staining to distinguish. What do you mean it got different cells from the start?
Here I will provide an English translation from an audio recording that was made during the measles trial in Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court) with Dr. Lanka, where one can read what the judge said, which is a bit different from what was written down in their ruling. This audio recording was given later to Feli Popescu who was also present at the trial and my translation was made from her Romanian translation of the audio recording.
https://johnblaid.substack.com/p/an-audio-translation-from-dr-stefan
Thank you John, Did Feli ever make the audio recording public? It is damning evidence against Reuters claims about the Judge and Trial.
She didn't make the audio recording, she received it from someone who was also at the trial who made it. She listened to the audio recording and made a Romanian translation of it that she published. The audio recording itself has not been published but I have it on my computer. Mind you that it is in German.
I think it would be great publish the actual recording with subtitles if the person that gave it to Feli would be happy with that.
Jamie, I just reply for the sake of everyone that may read these comments. It wasn't allowed to do an audio recording during the trial where the person who recorded it anyway do not want it released which is understandable. It's too bad tho but the translation that I've made has been verified by two people so at least we got an accurate transcript of what the judge said.
What should be noted here for people that haven't read the translation yet is that what the judge said differ a bit from what was written down into the ruling. The reason for this was maybe due to the judge feeling pressured to try and downplay things due to the massive importance and ramifications. Lanka writes a bit about this in the article below that is about what happened during the first and second trial.
"go VIRUS go"
https://truthseeker.se/govirusgo/
Wow!!
My favorite line: "the genomics ON IT’s own does not constitute evidence of existence"
Cracking article, it's good to see Feli getting a shout out in the comments section, her blog on the trial (C.W. Romanian idiums, e.g; "he who eats the donut, laughs longest!) is an entertaining read.
https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2016/03/pe-pariu-ca-pretinsul-virus-rujeolic-nu.html
The previous 5 blogs are below for those who want to review the timeline of the two trials;
1/http://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2015/03/pe-pariu-ca-pretinsul-virus-de-pojar-nu.html
2/https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2015/03/pe-pariu-ca-pretinsul-virus-rujeolic-nu.html
3/https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2015/05/pe-pariu-ca-pretinsul-virus-rujeolic-nu.html
4/https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2015/07/pe-pariu-ca-pretinsul-virus-rujeolic-nu.html
Chapter five discusses the six "measles" papers presented at the first trial;
5/https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2016/01/ce-este-un-fapt-stiintific-un-mic.html
The whole blog is worth reading, here she is discussing the non existence of the hypothetical "virus" with an 0xford biomedical student....
https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html
In Lanka's "measles challenge" he mentioned the "Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG)" as a prerequisete to be satisfied in order for the prize to be claimed, this is a set of rules drawn up in 1997 by the German Research Foundation (DFG) following fraud involving research money used to fund vaccines, it obliges all researchers who receive Government funding to comply with; "good scientific practice". In 1998 it was passed into law that all scientists and institutions that receive state funding were obliged to adhere to these rules in their work and in the preparation of reports or, put simply; publications without documented execution of control tests may not be presented as "scientific".
The latest version of these rules is in the link below;
https://www.dfg.de/resource/blob/174052/1a235cb138c77e353789263b8730b1df/kodex-gwp-en-data.pdf
And here we have it - the truth. The unadulterated truth.
Wooo Hoooo!
Right on, Jamie. ^_^
Thank you Jamie. Chalk up a victory for the good guys (and gals).
fantastic!
👏👏👏
Nice work, sir. Between your project and the DRs Sam & Mark Bailey, there is a powerhouse of logic and truth coming out.
There is no virus...
https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/pierre-chaillot-im-coming-out-no?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
yup
To clarify this statement:
"Given that Christine Massey has confirmed with her FOIA requests that ALL Viruses in every UN country are ONLY isolated in Cell Culture, we have falsified ALL virus isolation..."
The FOIs are from 40 different countries; I do not understand the reference to "UN countries". More importantly, none of the responses confirmed that any alleged "virus" had been isolated in any way whatsoever. As we well know, cell cultures don't result in anything being isolated/purified and they don't show that the alleged particles even exist let alone qualify as "viruses". The institutions were challenged to provide/cite studies where the alleged particles had been isolated/purified from bodily fluid/tissue/excrement (in accordance with the "virus" hypotheses and claims that they exist in "hosts") and they all failed. Hence they confessed/demonstrated that they have no way of logically/scientifically demonstrating that these alleged infectious particles exist at all let alone cause any symptoms.
Great… thanks for clarifying it was 40 countries. I assumed it would be the UN as all of the scamdemic was lead by the WHO which is a branch of the UN.
It's 224 different institutions, from 40 different/diverse countries, with multiple responses from many institutions.
Great Work... thank you.
Here are the parts of mitochondria and ribosomes in the virus isolate "Virus Isolation...We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation...We extracted nucleic acid from isolates...All the remaining contigs mapped to either host cell rRNA or mitochondria". 🤣
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
“But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed.” That’s sounds like a successful negative control to me? Please explain since I don’t understand your point than.
the fact the negative control displayed CPE means it failed. Of course it can be distinguished, it has completely different cells added to it from the sample for a start.
Would you mind to expand on that a bit ? If I read that correctly they put a different agent in the medium for the control sample, which produced different kinds of CPE. Which took staining to distinguish. What do you mean it got different cells from the start?
1. The unninoclated control contains JUST the cell line.
2. The inoculated culture contains the cell line + a sample i.e it has TWO different types of cells.
Of course you would be able to distinguish between cell morphology because they contain different cells.
They BOTH had CPE... so the experiment is failed
Thank you Albert, for your continued support!