Διαβάστε το άρθρο στα Ελληνικά εδώ.
For the first time, evidence has been submitted to a German court concerning the scientific significance and necessity of the measures envisaged against Covid-19. German lawyer Beate Bahner writes about the verdict in the Telegram:
“..While the administrative courts have been blocked and we have lost there with the same arguments so far, a family court (located in Weimar) is issuing a correct and very late decision – this decision will be the basis for all the other trials. Stay tuned and keep fighting.”
For the first time, evidence has been submitted to a German court concerning the scientific significance and necessity of the measures envisaged against the coronary artery. The experts were the doctor of hygiene Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein – also published the study: Protection of the mouth and nose in the public: no evidence of effectiveness, The psychologist Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. rer. biol. Hmm. Ulrike Kämmerer (entered) heard.
Litigation is the so-called child protection proceedings under Article 1666 (1) and (4) of the German Civil Code (BGB), initiated by a mother for her two sons aged 14 and 8 in a local court. The mother claimed that her children would suffer physical, psychological and educational harm without any benefit to the children or third parties. It would also violate many of the rights of children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions.
The proceedings under § 1666 BGB may be initiated ex officio, either on the motion of any person or without such a person, if the court deems that the intervention is necessary in the best interests of the child. § 1697a BGB.
After examining the factual and legal situation and assessing the petitions, the Weimar Family Court concluded that the measures undermine a current risk to the child’s mental, physical or emotional well-being to such an extent that their further development without further intervention is reasonably likely to cause significant damage.
The judge said: “There is such a danger here. Because children are not only endangered by their mental, physical and spiritual well-being, but also today they are harmed because they have to wear masks during school hours and keep their distance from each other and from others. This violates many rights of children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This includes in particular the right to free development of personality and the physical integrity of Article 2 of the Basic Law, as well as Article 6 of the Basic Law on the right to education and care of parents (also with regard to health measures and “objects ”Worn by children.)…”
In his ruling, the judge upheld the mother’s assessment: “Children are subject to physical, psychological and educational harm and their rights are violated, to no avail for the children themselves or for others.”
According to the court, school principals, teachers and others could not invoke the state legal provisions on which the measures are based, as they are unconstitutional and therefore invalid. Grounds: The principle of proportionality based on the rule of law is violated (Articles 20, 28 of the Basic Law).
“According to this principle, also known as the prohibition of exaggeration, the measures envisaged to achieve a legitimate aim must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate in the narrowest sense – that is, in assessing the benefits and disadvantages arising from it . Evidence-based measures, in contrast to Article 1 (2) of the IFSG, are already insufficient to achieve the fundamentally legitimate goal they are pursuing, namely to avoid overburdening the health system or reducing the rate of virus infection. SARS-CoV-2. In any case, however, they are disproportionate in the strict sense, as the significant upset / damage they cause is not offset by any obvious benefit to the children themselves or to third parties,” the judge ruled.
Following is (available for download) the official English translation of the Court’s decision. You can see the original in German here.
Amtsgericht Weimar, Beschluss vom 08.04.2021, Az.: 9 F 148/21 from Guy Boulianne
He said: “However, it must be emphasized that it is not the parties involved who have to justify the unconstitutionality of the interference with their rights, but rather the Free State of Thuringia, which violates the rights of those involved in its rights, which it must prove. The necessary scientific evidence, that the measures it has determined are appropriate to achieve the objectives and that, if necessary. are proportional. So far this has not happened at all.”
The inadequacy of PCR and rapid tests to measure the frequency of infection
Regarding the PCR test, the court wrote: “Already the special professor Dr. Med ιn his report emphasizes that only genetic material can be detected by the PCR test used, but not if the RNA comes from viruses capable of infection and therefore capable of reproduction.
In the report by experts in molecular biology, Kämmerer confirms that a PCR test – even if performed correctly – can not indicate whether a person has been infected with an active pathogen or not.
Because the test can not distinguish between “dead” material, for example a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the immune system’s fight against the cold or the flu (such genome fragments can be found several months after i.e. recovering from flu).
See what German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich said about the Weimar trial (10/4/2021)
For example, PCR is also used in criminology to reproduce residual DNA from hair remnants or other traces by PCR so that it can identify the genetic origin of the perpetrator (s) (“genetic fingerprint”).
Even if everything is done “correctly” during the PCR, including all the preparatory steps (PCR design and installation, sampling, preparation and execution of the PCR) and the test is positive, ie: a genome sequence detects which, if necessary , is also present in one or even the specific “Corona” virus (SARS-CoV-2), this does not in any way mean that the person tested positive has been infected with a replicable SARS-CoV-2 and therefore able to transmit the infection to other individuals.
In contrast, the determination of active SARS-CoV-2 infection requires additional diagnostic methods, such as isolating reproducible viruses.
In addition to the fundamental impossibility of detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus infection by PCR, the results of a PCR cause considerable uncertainty and, on the other hand, can be manipulated in such a way as to obtain many or some (obviously) positive results.
The judge points out that, according to the unanimous scientific opinion, all the “positive” results that are recognized only by a 35 ct cycle have no scientific basis (ie without evidence). At 26-35 ct, the test can only be evaluated as positive compared to virus culture. The RT-qPCR test for SARS-CoV-2, which has been distributed worldwide with the help of the WHO, is set to 45 cycles without CT value for “positive” (and after all other tests based on it as a design) define.
The judge summarized his decision as follows:
“Forcing students to wear masks and keep their distance from each other and others, harms children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psychosocial development, more than a marginal benefit to the children themselves or to others.”
Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic” event.
“The PCR tests and rapid tests used are in principle alone and are not suitable for determining ‘infection’ by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
According to the expert report, this is already the result of the calculations of the Robert Koch Institute itself. According to RKI calculations, as a special professor Dr. Kuhbandner explains, in mass tests with rapid tests, regardless of the symptoms, the chance of actually becoming infected if a positive result is achieved is only 2% with a frequency of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%).
This would mean: for two truly positive rapid test results there would be 98 false positive rapid test results, which would have to be retested by PCR. “A (regular) compulsion for mass examinations without a cause in asymptomatic people, ie in good health, for whom the medical indication is already missing, can not be imposed because it is disproportionate compared to the result that can be achieved with it. At the same time, the regular requirement to take tests puts children under psychological pressure as their ability to attend school is constantly tested. ”
Finally, the judge notes: “Based on research in Austria, where the masks are not worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are performed three times a week, according to the specialist Dr. Kuhbandner, 100,000 elementary school students will have to go through all the side effects of using a mask for a week to avoid one infection per week. Describing this result as “useful” would be a completely inadequate description. On the contrary, it shows that the state legislature that regulates this area has moved away from reality that have taken on historical changes.”