Are you going to take the vaccine?

[tadeus]

Is it true or does it not exist.  You decide.

Two documents indicating covid not real.  One man won a court case in Alberta Canada and
all mandates are void (second link)

https://greatreject.org/laboratories-can...ive-tests/

https://www.redvoicemedia.com/video/2021...n-alberta/

There has been an funny lawsuit in germany, that witness that a measles virus is not existing at all.
The evidence is universal to the concept of proofing the existance of an virus.

The lawsuit was about an competition that such an virus does not exist.

OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 16.2.2016, 12 U 63/15

Reasons

I.
1

The parties dispute in the main proceedings whether the plaintiff can claim the amount of EUR 100,000 offered by the defendant for the detection of the measles virus.
2

1 The defendant, a biologist, is of the opinion - contrary to the unanimous opinion in science - that measles is not caused by viruses, that there is not and cannot be a measles virus. On the Internet side of the "k...-k... Verlag", which he operates, he offered "prize money" of EUR 100,000.00 on November 24, 2011, as follows:
3

"The prize money will be paid if a scientific publication is submitted in which the existence of the measles virus is not only claimed but also proven and in which, among other things, its diameter is determined.
4

The prize money will not be paid if the determination of the diameter of the measles virus is only models or drawing such as ... ..."
5

For further details of the text, reference is made to the detailed presentation in the facts of the judgment of the Ravensburg Regional Court and to Annex K 1. Whether the complete text of the invitation to tender can be seen on the website of the "k...-k... Verlag" or whether it could only be read by calling up the newsletter - which was also posted on the Internet - was disputed at second instance. In any case, the plaintiff was not the recipient of the newsletter.
6

The plaintiff, at that time still a student and now a physician, submitted several publications to the defendant in a letter dated January 31, 2012 (Annex K 4) which, in his opinion, proved the existence of the measles virus beyond doubt and requested payment of the prize money. The defendant rejected this request because the measles virus had not been proven.
7

The defendant also operates the publishing house "W... A... und Verlag", on whose homepage on the Internet on April 13, 2014, three days after the first hearing date in this case, could be read at times:
8

"On Monday, 14.04.2014 we will report in this place, to which we will refer via newsletter, that, why and how the unpromoted, non-specialist junior doctor D... B... and his illegal backers lied to the court and the public in the "Wetten, dass es keine Masernviren gibt!" trial on 10.04.2014, before the Ravensburg Regional Court. We expect that Dr. L.. will be acquitted on April 24, 2014, and that D... B... will be arrested for court fraud, inability to pay court and attorney fees, expenses and reimbursement of expenses, aiding and abetting mass bodily injury, in part resulting in death, and for risk of flight abroad."
9

The plaintiff objected to this and demanded a cease-and-desist declaration from the defendant, which the latter submitted on April 15, 2014 (Annex K 11).
10

Of the legal fees incurred by the plaintiff in the amount of EUR 492.54, he paid EUR 155.00 himself and was reimbursed for the excess amount by the R... Rechtsschutzversicherungs-AG, which made the remaining payment.
11

The plaintiff submitted in the first instance,

all the requirements set by the defendant in its invitation to tender had been met. The publications submitted by the plaintiff prove beyond doubt the existence of the measles virus in the scientific sense and determine its diameter.
12

The asserted extrajudicial lawyer's costs for obtaining a declaration of discontinuance with penalty clause had to be borne by the defendant already because he was responsible for the content of his homepage. There is also prima facie evidence that the defendant himself placed the content on his homepage.
13

The plaintiff filed a motion in the first instance,
14

1. order the defendant to pay the plaintiff EUR 100,000.00 plus 5% interest above the prime rate since May 1, 2012;
15

2. order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a subsidiary claim in the amount of EUR 2,924.07 in extrajudicial attorney's fees;
16

3. order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the amount of EUR 492.54 plus 5% interest above the prime rate since 04/16/2014.
17

The defendant requested at first instance,
18

dismiss the action.
19

The defendant submitted at first instance that
the publications submitted did not meet the requirements set by the invitation to tender. The existence of the measles virus had to be proven by a publication of the R...-K...-Institute (in the following: RKI), which was responsible for this according to § 4 Infektionsschutzgesetz (IfSG). This is already evident from the fact that, with regard to the publication in Germany, the rules of the IfSG, which were specifically created for the provision of evidence in the area of infectious diseases, are to be applied. From the context of the announcement, the purpose of the announcement was clearly to clarify whether the documentation of the RKI corresponded to the K... postulate of isolation of the pathogen.
20

Furthermore, the submission of a single publication was required, in which both the proof for the existence of the measles virus was provided and its diameter was determined, so that it was not sufficient if - as represented by the expert - only the combination of the scientific statements in the six submitted articles proved the existence of the measles virus and at least two of these articles contained sufficient information on the diameter of the measles virus. Apart from that, the submitted publications did not meet the requirements for evidence in terms of content. The phenomena presented as measles viruses were in fact cellular transport vesicles (vesicles). None of the submitted documentation was based on experiments in which the pathogen - as required - had been isolated and biochemically characterized beforehand or even such an isolation had been scientifically documented. The type of evidence in the experiments on which the plaintiff relies does not correspond to the state of the art in science and technology and does not meet the requirements for evidence in compliance with K...'s postulates. In addition, the submitted works were already unsuitable because they all originated from the time before the IfSG came into force on 01.01.2001 and did not represent a publication of the RKI. The determination of the diameter was also not well-founded. The size range of 300 to 1000 nm given in one of the submitted publications alone refuted the thesis of the virus, since viruses are characterized by a small variation in their diameter between 15 and a maximum of 400 nm. Moreover, information from the RKI dated 24 January 2012 indicates that the diameter of measles viruses is 120 - 400 nm and that they often contain ribosomes inside, although the latter contradict the existence of a measles virus.
21

The statement on the homepage of the publishing house "W... A... und Verlag" did not originate from him and, at the time of the requested cease-and-desist declaration, had also no longer been posted there. Accordingly, he had not given any cause for the out-of-court activity of the plaintiff's legal representatives.
22

With regard to the further submissions of the parties at first instance, reference is made to the facts of the judgment of the Regional Court and the pleadings exchanged at first instance together with the annexes and the minutes of the hearing.
23

In its judgment, the operative part of which was read out at the end of the last hearing (pp. 150, 151), the Regional Court upheld the action in its entirety. The publication of the text of the invitation to tender on the Internet constituted a public announcement of the invitation to tender. The interpretation of the text leads to the result that, contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the publications do not have to be those of the RKI nor do they have to originate from the time after the IfSG came into force and the text of the invitation to tender is also not to be understood to the effect that the required proof must be provided in a single publication or that reviews may not be used. As can be seen from the convincing expert opinion of Prof. Dr. Dr. P... the publications were without exception scientific articles. They proved - according to the explanations of the expert - not in each case individually, but in their total view the existence of a virus, which was causative for the measles illness. Together, they also fulfilled the K...-H... postulates raised by the defendant in the course of the legal dispute as the standard of proof. The own chain of evidence demanded by the defendant, according to which the measles virus had to be photographed in a human being or his body fluid, isolated from it, purified, photographed again and then its composition biochemically characterized with a subsequent reinfection experiment, was merely a hypothesis which did not have scientific significance because it did not represent a scientifically established standard.

...

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

So this pictures of the COVID-virus are only a model to help us to manifestate it!



The result has been published detailed in this science magazine: