|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > October 2005 > Court rules HIV not proven to cause "AIDS."
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Court rules HIV not proven to cause "AIDS."
|
|
| montygram 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| Link: http://www.rebirth.co.za/court_rule...roven_to_ca.htm
"Court rules HIV not proven to cause 'AIDS.'"
Article by Paul King, Saturday June 21, 2003 04:28 PM.
After years of claims by the AIDS establishment that a link between HIV
and immune suppression had been established a High Court found the
claim without merit and a unfounded deception. This is the first legal
trail of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and a historic defeat for AID$ Inc.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson
The United Nations Centre for Human Rights, United Nations Office at
Geneva
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
To all Heads of Government and all Heads of State
To all NGOs
Legal proceedings against the "Deutscher Bundestag", the Parliament of
the Federal Republic of Germany: Because of the intentional
continuation of acts of killing and manslaughter (=A7 220a StGB Germany)
by the German Parliament.
During the last six years proofs have been collected for the following
actions that have taken place inside Germany:
The State intentionally is using non-valid tests to persuade healthy
persons to take a deadly long-term medication. The persons, being
healthy before being tested die during the long-term-medication. The
German Parliament, since years intentionally is securing that this
crime continues.
Course of Events on January 15th 2001 at the District Court
(Landgericht) of Dortmund:
Judge Hackmann announced the statement of the
"Bundesgesundheitsbeh=F6rde", the Federal German Health Authorities,
which says that in connection with AIDS there has never been isolated a
virus (Dr. Marcus, Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) Berlin). The judge
figured out that the German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the
Federal Health Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful
isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a
petition (Art. 17, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Pet. 5-13-15-2002-010526).
The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by
the misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March
1995, that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the
publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved
the untruthfulness of this statement using Dr. Marcus' statement
itself. The court imposed a suspended sentence of 8 months of jail
because of attempted coercion of the authorities to adhere and act
according to law and order.
The document of the German Bundestag DS 12/8591 holds proof that the
Bundestag had already known in 1994 that neither Montagnier (1983) nor
Gallo (1984) had isolated any virus in connection with AIDS. Based on
this the Bundestag safeguarded the persistent lie of the AIDS
information campaign (RKI) from 9th March 1995 about the successful
isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS. As a consequence of
non-tolerating this lie and because of non-tolerating the deadly
consequences of this lie, the trial took place on 15th January 2001.
It is impossible - as far as laboratory conditions are concerned -
to develop a valid Virus-antibody-test, if the virus has not been
isolated before. Every layman understands that an individual proof for
an infection with a virus is impossible, if the existence of the virus
has never been generally proven. This knowledge of the German health
authorities, that the tests are not validated, can be proven via the
authorities' documents themselves. The error concerning the test's
validity is spread and supported by the authorities - against better
knowledge.
With two more petitions the Bundestag safeguarded the default of the
responsible authorities, not to carry out the law (=A763 AMG, Stufenplan
II), to do studies and observations to protect persons taking the
AIDS-Medicine, the chemotherapy AZT (Pet. 5-13-15-2002-058744 and Pet.
5-13-15-212-023567a).
The health authorities and the Bundestag know that there will be no
test method to prove an HIV-Infection, as long as HIV has not been
isolated. And there is no doubt that AZT - as well as the
HIV-medications in general - are deadly themselves when used as
long-term-medication.
In the course of the proceedings of the petitions the Bundestag created
an apparent peace of law - by means of deliberately untruthful
statements. President of the German Parliament Wolfgang Thierse regards
untruthful behaviour of this kind (as shown by the Bundestag) as being
justified by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional
Court). A videotape documenting an interview (28th June 1995) shows
that his predecessor in office, Prof. Rita S=FCssmuth did know, that
there had never been any proofs for a virus in connection with AIDS and
that there are no proofs for the claims of infectivity.
Still pending in the Bundestag is the petition Pet. 2-14-15-212-02608.
It is lodging a complaint against the legal authorities, which stayed
passive after getting the attention of the proofs for these act of
killings. Enclosed with the complaint were so many proofs, which had
made it necessary for the Bundestag to take actions right after
perusal, to stop the continuation of these acts of killings by the
state. Within the last six months every single member of the German
Bundestag was informed six times via mail about these acts of killing
by the state.
The intention of the German Bundestag to safeguard killings by the
state after gaining insight into the facts must be regarded as proven,
especially because of the fact that several petitions were rejected by
means of untruthful statements. The German Bundestag and every
individual member of the Bundestag intentionally safeguards acts of
killings by the state by deliberately misleading the public. Healthy
people are intentionally lead into a deadly medication via tests with
invalid results - and then die.
The criminal law of the BRD and especially =A7 220a StGB (Genocide)
protects citizens from act of killings organised by a state which is
deliberately misleading the public. It also protects the citizens
binding the legal authorities to take actions after perusal. The
prosecuting attorneys attended the trial on 15th January 2001 at the
Landgericht Dortmund and learned about the facts - in front of the
public. Their passivity afterwards serves as a further proof for their
further intention in this matter. (LG Dortmund, Ns 70 Js 878/99
14(XVII) K 11/00)
Back to HIV/AIDS index page.
Karl Krafeld and Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dortmund and Stuttgart, 14.3.2001
Science, Medicine and Human Rights (Wissenschaft, Medizin und
Menschenrechte e.V.), Germany
Albrechtstr. 17, D-44137 Dortmund, 0711 2220601, Lanka@free.de
For other studying of HIV and AIDS you can see this very interesting
site:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/epapadopoulos.htm
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| On 21 Oct 2005 23:56:47 -0700, "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com>
wrote:
>Link: http://www.rebirth.co.za/court_rule...roven_to_ca.htm
>
>"Court rules HIV not proven to cause 'AIDS.'"
>Article by Paul King, Saturday June 21, 2003 04:28 PM.
LOL. Paul King was a contributor to this newsgroup til he ran away.
Citing him is unconvincing, to say the least.
George M. Carter
| |
| montygram 2005-10-24, 12:56 am |
| If good Mr. Carter is suggesting that the German courts did not rule
this way, then please cite your references. Otherwise, you are using
the common technique of attempting to deflect attention away from
something you believe to be "against you." This is bigger than you,
Mr. Carter, no matter how much you happen to weigh. I am willing to be
an experimental subject in my version of the "Duesberg challange," if
anyone who believes in the "HIV=AIDS=death" cult had the guts to take
me up on it. They can't even explain exactly how this "virus" is to be
isolated, despite the claims that it was isolated long ago. How can
you infect me with "pure virus?" How are you going to obtain it free
of the other consistuents of a ill person's blood?
They have no answers to these basic questions. The Mr. Carters of the
world will do everything in their powers to deflect attention away from
the basic scientific questions, but at some point momentum will build
up and it will not longer be possible to ignore these questions. This
has already happened in Germany, and they know a thing or two about
"holocausts."
How do you isolate the virus, Mr. Carter? Explain it to us.
Once again, I am patiently waiting...
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-24, 12:56 am |
| On 22 Oct 2005 15:22:00 -0700, "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com>
wrote:
>If good Mr. Carter is suggesting that the German courts did not rule
>this way, then please cite your references.
LOL...I don't believe what you write for the most part and
a) should the court have done PRECISELY what you say, that is but one
court and certainly not a scientific body;
b) it is probably that this "finding" of the court is more nuanced
than you claim;
c) it is probable that higher courts did not affirm the decision.
Bottom line is, I don't really give a shit what some court seems to
have said when it comes to understanding the science behind HIV. That
would be like saying the Scopes Monkey Trial had a justified outcome.
"Intelligent design" is nothing more than another tarted up and rather
drab creation myth, not science.
George M. Carter
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-10-24, 12:56 am |
|
montygram wrote:
> If good Mr. Carter is suggesting that the German courts did not rule
> this way, then please cite your references.
It would be much easier for you to attain the original court documents
and prove that they say what Stefan Lanka claims.
Stefan lanka has been making claims about legal decisions regarding HIV
since 1997.
Other dissidents have already debunked his claims.
In the mean time it is illegal to knowingly infect another person with
HIV. Several people have been tried and convicted of this crime. I am
not necessarily condoning the criminalistaion of this act but it is a
fact that it is currently illegal.
http://www.gnpplus.net/criminalisation/germany.shtml
There have also been court cases involving the transmission of HIV
through blood products.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract
"Criminal investigations in Germany led to convictions of five
officials of UB Plasma in Koblenz for in- flicting bodily harm from
1987 to 1993 by selling thou-sands of units of viral-infected blood
products that were inconsistently tested for HIV (23). In 1993, Germany
s health minister recommended HIV testing of persons who had received
blood transfusions in the 1980s, fueling speculation of a cover-up.
Afterward, Haemoplas, a German blood products company, was charged with
having inconsistently tested for HIV in 1986 and 1987. Two officials
were charged with murder, and one was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison
(24 26)."
"In 1973, the New York Blood Center established a relationship with the
Swiss Red Cross, which had a history of innovation and professionalism.
As a result, the Center began importing its blood supply from
Switzerland (8). In 1985, using ELISA, the Center detected HIV in
imported Swiss blood products (27). Alfred Haessig, former director of
the Swiss Red Cross s Central Laboratory, was given a suspended
sentence in 1998 for delaying introduction of donor screening
questionnaires until May 1986, maintaining that HIV could be chemically
inactivated, delaying use of imported heattreated blood products, and
testing only exported blood products for HIV (8, 28)."
Note that Alfred Haessig became a dissident after he was prosecuted.
Now you can continue to believe unsubstantiated rumours on the internet
or you can accept reality.
Chris Noble
| |
| montygram 2005-10-26, 10:52 am |
| I'm not a "belief" person. I'm only interested in the science of it.
I agree that what a court says is not relevant to the science of it.
However, in a court of law (assuming it isn't corrupt) nonsense is not
allowed and when an assertion is made, there needs to be credible
evidence for it. If such a decision was not made by the German Courts,
then there must be some article written somewhere by a credible
journalist that cites documents from the Court that decided the case in
question. Where is that article? I'm interested from a sociological
and legal perspective, but it certainly does not change the science of
the situation.
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-26, 10:52 am |
| On 24 Oct 2005 15:50:21 -0700, "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com>
wrote:
>I'm not a "belief" person. I'm only interested in the science of it.
What a load of crap.
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
|
montygram wrote:
> I'm not a "belief" person.
Why then do you believe Stefan Lanka's account in the face of evidence
to the contrary.
> I'm only interested in the science of it.
Snort!
> I agree that what a court says is not relevant to the science of it.
> However, in a court of law (assuming it isn't corrupt) nonsense is not
> allowed and when an assertion is made, there needs to be credible
> evidence for it. If such a decision was not made by the German Courts,
> then there must be some article written somewhere by a credible
> journalist that cites documents from the Court that decided the case in
> question. Where is that article?
Where is the article by a credible journalist that the German Courts
did make this decision?
The burden of proof is upon you. What evidence do you have for your
claim?
Chris Noble
| |
| montygram 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
| The evidence is in the link. This is not a scientific issue, nor is it
a legal one. I posted a link, and if someone can post a translation of
the court case at issue, that would be great, but other than that,
there is not much more I can do because I do not know the German
language beyond a phrase or two. I just posted the link. I did not
make a claim. When I make a claim, I provide evidence and explain it
in detail.
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
|
montygram wrote:
> The evidence is in the link.
What do you mean evidence?
The only thing that is definite is that Karl Krafeld and Stefan Lanka
claim that a German court ruled that HIV has not been proven to cause
AIDS. They sent a letter to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Mary Robinson The United Nations Centre for Human Rights,
United Nations Office at Geneva making this claim.
> This is not a scientific issue, nor is it
> a legal one. I posted a link, and if someone can post a translation of
> the court case at issue, that would be great, but other than that,
> there is not much more I can do because I do not know the German
> language beyond a phrase or two. I just posted the link. I did not
> make a claim. When I make a claim, I provide evidence and explain it
> in detail.
Why do you demand that somebody else prove that the Krafeld/Lanka
version of the German court case is not true?
Lanka's claims are not worth the electrons they are printed on.
Chris Noble
| |
| Chris Noble 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
|
montygram wrote:
>I did not make a claim.
No, you just started a thread with the title.
**********Court rules HIV not proven to cause "AIDS."***********
It was not like you were making a claim of any sort.
No, definitely not!
Chris Noble
|
| |
|
|