• For viruses as the cause of illness there is really no place in biology. Only when I ignore the New Medici-
  ne from Dr. Hamer, according to which shock events are the cause of many diseases, when I ignore the knowledge of chemistry about the effects of poisoning and deficiency and if I persistently ignore knowledge of physics about the effects of radiation, there is room for fancies like pathogenic viruses.

Life is symbiosis.

• Biological structures, that produce something negative, have never existed. The foundation of all biologi-
  cal life is being together, is symbiosis, and there is no place for war and disturbance. War and distur-
  bance in biological life is an opinion of sick and criminal brains.

• During my studies I have never found any evidence for the existence of viruses that make one sick [...]. Structures that have been characterized as viruses can be found in many types of bacteria and in simple, bacteria-like forms of life. [...] Very important, viruses are components of very simple organisms [...] and of many bacteria. In bacteria they are called phages. But in more complex organisms, especially human beings, or in animals and plants, none of the structures that have been called viruses have ever been observed. Unlike bacteria in our cells, the mitochondria [...] viruses can leave the cells because they are not needed for their survival. So viruses are components of cells that can leave the cells. They sup-
  port other cells, in that they transfer energy substances to them. Nothing else has ever been observed.
  The actual, scientifically proven viruses have a helping, supporting and not at all a disturbing function within the highly complex processes of the cell. Furthermore, in cases of illness one has never seen or isolated a structure in the sick organism or its body fluids that can be called a virus. The claim of the existence of any disease-causing virus is a transparent fraud, a fatal lie with dramatic consequences.

Inconsistencies of the conventional medical virus theory (clinical virology)

• I refer to the review (88 pages) by Professor Karlheinz Lüdtke titled Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusfor-
  schung published by the Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte in 1999. In there Professor Lüdtke explained that clinical virology, i.e. the virology practiced by physicians, had disbanded itself around the years 1951 and 1952. At that time, a virus was actually defined as a toxin, as a disease poison, as an enzyme that does something, and so on. The same is claimed to be true for bacteria. Here we would have a tetanus toxin or a Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) toxin or a botulinus toxin. In reality, they are harmless enzymes. By means of control experiments it was discovered that the claim these were dangerous enzymes was based on a false assumption. Firstly, the enzymes were not dangerous, and se-
  condly, the proteins found in the enzymes were completely normal components of healthy cells. That is what medicine has figured out and published and thereupon dissolved itself. That was correct. Up until the years 1951/1952 there was no virology any longer. Professor Lüdtke stated very clearly that from 1953 onwards a dogma emerged according to which the hereditary substance, the nucleic acid in the cell nu-
  cleus, was the blueprint and functional plan of life. According to this dogma, viruses are practically dange-
  rous genetic material. A change had occurred. From now on the virus was no longer a poisonous body [Latin virus = venom], but dangerous genetic material. This was a new dogma. Young, unsuspecting che-
  mists who thought it was great, who didn't take the time to read, simply adopted this concept and thus founded a new virology, without realizing that the old one had been completely abandoned. So suddenly
  a new virology was created which is still in use today. It postulates that a virus is a very dangerous piece
  of genetic material that programs cells to die and multiplies by the billions. The very dangerous viruses
  would remain dormant for another 20 years and then multiply and dissolve the body. This is the new gene
  dogma upon which viruses are dangerous gene fragments that can be encased by proteins and a shell.
  This dogma is still upheld even though the gene dogma was abandoned in the 1990s because it was dis-
  covered that the nucleic acid changes so extensively and permanently that it cannot be a hereditary sub-
  stance at all. Ivan Illich has shown that medicine, when it is forced to make a profit, cannot give up any-
  thing it once invented. Otherwise it would collapse. That is why it is not given up. There are careers at-
  tached to it.  Mintue 0:13

Changing paradigms – The concept that mutated genes trigger disease is refuted.

• Question: Some people in science know that there are no viruses and that the idea of dangerous heredi-
  tary material is not tenable either. What do we get sick from then? Many people believe that they get in-
  fected. And a lot of people also believe that they will get the diseases that their parents and siblings al-
  ready had. What is the answer to this question?  Minute 6:39

• The discovery of phages, the so-called bacterial "viruses", reinforced the wrong assumption and the belief that there were human and animal viruses that looked the same and had the same structure. This is not and cannot be the case, for several different reasons. [...] It was only later discov-ered that merely the bacteria which had been high-ly inbred in the test tube could turn into phages themselves, by contact with phages, but this never applied to natural bacteria or bacteria which had just been isolated from their natu-
  ral environment. [...] Before it could be established that the "bacterial viruses" cannot kill natural bacteria, but they are instead helping them to live and that bacteria themselves emerge from such structures, these "phages" were already used as models for the alleged human and animal viruses. [...]
  The "bacteriophages", correctly defined as incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria, have been scientifically isolated, while the supposed pathogenic viruses have never been observed in humans or animals or in their body fluids and have never been isolated and subsequently biochemically analysed.

• The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as
  the "virus isolation technique", it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses.
    1. Centrifuge tube with silicone beads gradient layered with a suspension of viruses and cellular particles.
    2. Centrifuge tube with "bands" of viruses and cellular particles after centrifugation.
    3. By extracting the viral band with a pipette, the virus is thus isolated and purified.

• With his unscientific experiments and interpretations that he [ John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier] had never confirmed through negative controls, Enders brought the entire "viral" infectious medicine to a dead end. Enders, like many infectious diseases specialists, worked for the U.S. military, which had always been and remains to date a huge victim of the fear of contagion. […]
  During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilised the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn't take into consideration was that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was killing the cells. Instead, he interpreted the cytopathic effects as the existence and the action of polio viruses, without ever having isolated a single virus and described its biochemistry. The necessary negative control experiments, which would have shown that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cells prior to the "infection" in the test tube was killing the cells, have never been performed. However, for this "performance" Enders received the Nobel prize in 1954.
  1954 is also the year in which Enders applied and introduced the same technique in order to allegedly replicate the measles virus. As he had been awarded the Nobel prize for the alleged polio virus the same year, all researchers believed his technique to be scientifically valid. Thus, to date, the entire concept of measles has been based upon this technique. Thus, the measles vaccines do not contain viruses, but particles of dead monkey kidney tissue or human cancer cells. […]
  Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being "infected"), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and factors. All these facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded.

• In that experiment ², Enders et al. cut down dramatically on the nutrient solution and added cell-destroying antibiotics to the cell culture before introducing the allegedly infected fluid. The subsequent dying of the cells was then misinterpreted as presence and also isolation of the measles virus. No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects. Enders' and his colleagues' blindness can be explained by the fact that he truly wanted to help people, while the virus hysteria was intensifying after the war and during the cold war. It can also be explained by the fact that Enders and many of his colleagues had no idea about medi-
  cine and they were competing with the Soviet Union for the development of the first measles vaccine.

• The fifth publication [handed in by Dr. David Bardens in 2011] is a review describing the consensus pro-
  cess as to which nucleic acid molecules from the dead cells would represent the so-called genome of the measles virus. The result is that dozens of researchers teams work with short pieces of cell-specific mole-
  cules, after which – following a given model – they put all the pieces together on paper. However, this jig-
  saw puzzle made of so many pieces was never scientifically proven to exist as a whole and was never
  isolated from a virus, for a measles virus has never been seen, neither in humans nor in a test tube.
  Referring to this publication, the court-appointed expert stated that it described the gold standard, i.e. the entire virus genome. It is obvious that the expert did not read this paper, whose authors stated that the exact molecular composition and functions of the measles virus genome will have to be the object of fur-
  ther research, which is why they had to rely on other virus models in order to achieve a consensus on the structure and functions of the measles virus genome.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in the measles virus process. The 1st Civil Senate of the BGH con-
firmed the judgment of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court (OLG) of February 16, 2016. The € 100,000 that I
offered in 2011 for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not have to be paid to the
plaintiff. The latter was also ordered to pay all the costs.

Five experts contributed to the process and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski unanimously found that none of the six publications included in the process contain scientific evidence for the existence of the alleged measles virus.

Genetics disproves claims to existence
The results of investigations into the so-called genetic fingerprint of the alleged measles virus were brought into the process. Two recognized laboratories, including the world's largest and leading genetic institute, indepen-
dently came to exactly the same results. The results prove that the authors of the six publications on the measles virus process were wrong and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong: they have misinterpreted normal components of cells as components of the suspected measles virus.
Because of this mistake, in a decade-long consensus-building process, normal cell components were put together to form a model of a measles virus. An actual structure that corresponds to this model has so far not been found in either a human or an animal. With the results of the genetic studies, all claims of existence to the measles virus have been scientifically refuted.

The authors of the six publications and all other participants did not notice this mistake because they violated the fundamental scientific obligation, "lege artis", to work according to the internationally defined rules of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Carrying out the control experiments would have protected au-
thors and humanity from this serious error. This error became the basis of the belief in the existence of all disea-
se-causing viruses.[1] The court-appointed expert Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski has explicitly confirmed on request of the trial court on page 7 of the protocol [2] that the authors did not carry out any control experiments.

On February 16, 2016, the OLG Stuttgart overturned the wrongful judgment of the first instance, dismissed the lawsuit and referred, among other things, to the central statement by Prof. Podbielski regarding the six publi-
cations. The plaintiff attempted to overturn the judgment of the OLG with a complaint to the BGH. He justified his subjective but factually incorrect perception of the procedure in Stuttgart and the claim that our naming of facts about measles is a threat to public health. The plaintiff's claims were clearly rejected by the BGH. The BGH has thus confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart of February 16, 2016[3].

Conclusions
The six publications presented in the process are the relevant publications on the "measles virus." Since there are demonstrably no other publications besides these six publications in which attempts have been made to prove the existence of the measles virus using scientific methods, this now has the highest judge's authority Judgment in the measles virus process and the results of the genetic studies.

Consequences
All national and international statements on the suspected measles virus, the infectiousness of measles, the benefits and harmlessness of the measles vaccination have been deprived of scientific evidence and thus the legal basis.
Through inquiries triggered by the measles virus competition, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This ad-
mission can explain the increased vaccination damage rate especially for measles vaccination and why and
how this vaccination triggers autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the "measles virus" typically contains cell components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cells). Since the measles vaccination consists of "whole measles viruses", this vaccine contains cell-specific structures. This explains why measles vaccination triggers more frequent and stronger allergies and autoimmune reactions than other vaccinations. The court appraiser Prof. Podbielski stated several times that the RKI's claim that ribosomes in the measles virus were wrong, has refuted the existence claims of a measles virus.

During the proceedings it was also recorded that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectio-
logy, the RKI, failed to prepare and publish studies against the alleged measles virus, contrary to its legal man-
date in § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG). The RKI claims that it has carried out internal investigations into the
measles virus, but refuses to hand over or publish the results.

• Contrary to what most people believe, there are no pathogenic viruses. The claims about the existence of viruses and viral diseases are based on historic misinterpretations and not, as I thought in the past – on fraud or deliberate deception. We now have new, better, and in a positive sense "scientific" discoveries and explanations for the origins, therapy and prevention of not just "viral" diseases.
  The phenomenon of simultaneous or subsequent appearance of symptoms in different persons, which has been until now interpreted as contagion and was believed to be caused by the transmission of pathogens, is now also easy to understand through new discoveries. Thus, we now have a new view of life (which in reality is an old view) and of the cosmological integration of biological processes.
  The "new", rather re-discovered perspective could only originate outside of the official "science"; one of the reasons for this is that the people involved in scientific institutions do not fulfill their first and most important scientific duty – to permanently doubt and double-check every theory. Otherwise, they would have already discovered that the misinterpretation had been taking place for a long time already and had become a dogma only extremely unscientific activities in the years 1858, 1953 and 1954.
  The transition to a new explanation of health, disease and healing will only succeed because all the con-
  cerned therapists and scientists can save face with it. From history and the new perspective on biology and life, we now also have explanations for the emotions, the ignorance of all kinds of human behavior. This the second optimistic message. Coming out of a dead end and forgiving the errors of the past can take place even more effectively, the more one understands what happened and learns for the future.