 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005Court rules HIV not proven to cause "AIDS."
Link: http://www.rebirth.co.za/court_rules_hiv_not_proven_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 (§ 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 "Bundesgesundheitsbehörde", 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 (§63 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 Süssmuth 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 § 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 I wonder if my wife and I could have our next child in Germany so we wouldn't have another damn horror story like we had this year with our first baby. Our rights are slowly going out the window ok *cut0ff* rant /peace >Link: http://www.rebirth.co.za/court_rules_hiv_not_proven_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 >>Link: http://www.rebirth.co.za/court_rules_hiv_not_proven_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. Paul King didn't run away. When talkabout crashed over a weekend, Dr. Godschalk said this: | Goodbye Talkabout... And another one bites the dust. | (Paul King would be soooo proud of us). That's not how people talk about somebody who's still alive.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber 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... >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 sh.t 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 > 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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 1848729&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 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. >I'm not a "belief" person. I'm only interested in the science of it. What a load of crap. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 >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
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.