Journey

So, the first video is the most recent video I could find (German interview pre & post court)

7 Dec 2022 Watch the video (in German) on Transition TV

(I’ve transcribed it in English below)

TTV: Good morning, Marvin. We’re at the district court again today. What’s the occasion today?

Marvin: Today is December 7th. Similar to the last time, we’re dealing with a fine that is being negotiated here. This time it’s a mask that wasn’t worn, and there’s a fine that has now been appealed. The accused (myself) is also arguing with the existence / proof of the virus. That means he will refer to paragraph §1 of the Infection Protection Act and then make the corresponding evidentiary requests that are intended to show that virology does not fulfil paragraph §1, namely scientific rigor.

TTV: Can you tell us more precisely for the viewers what is so special about the evidentiary request?

Marvin: The evidentiary applications are aimed at showing or proving to the court that no control experiments are carried out at all levels and on all methods in virology, and that is not state of the art of science and technology, as required by law. Because it is necessary to control all methods, and always doubt all results consistently, according to the DfG, the German Research Institute.

TTV: Can you briefly say again what the control experiment would have had to be?

Marvin: So for every method virologists use, they have to do controls. Once for the cytopathic effect, i.e. when they play around with cell cultures and kill them.

TTV: Exactly

Marvin: Then they would also have to do the same with a healthy sample, from a healthy patient. For genome sequencing, they also have to sequence the control and try to build the viral genome on the computer, and of course, also with the infection experiments, that don’t even exist, but if they were to take place, they would also have to try to infect healthy animals with sick animals, so to speak, and show that only the sick animals transmit the disease.

TTV: We were here ten days ago. You already mentioned that some procedures have been carried out, and that we have found the same evidence, and we looked at that, and it was dismissed. Do you expect that today too? Or what do you think, how will it go today?

Marvin: I expect it to be dismissed today too, but of course, I hope that the judge will deal with the matter, and also that he fulfils his civic duty, his social duty, to raise a topic that is socially relevant, and not just dismiss it every time. But yes, we will see. I am curious.

TTV: Well, then let’s go in now, and see you in a bit.

Marvin: Alright.

TTV: Yes, Marvin, the hearing is over. How did it go?

Marvin: As we expected earlier, the judge dismissed the proceedings, and the costs are to be borne by the state. The accused does not have to pay a fine.

TTV: And also no court costs.

Marvin: No court fees, exactly, and basically, this time it was a very friendly judge. The judge allowed the accused to read out the entire application, the entire justification/foundation, and read out the evidentiary requests. The judge listened to everything and then said, yes, that this couldn’t actually be clarified at this level, but it’s just about the matter now, and he sees the case as closed for him, because there could have been a mask attestation. Yes, he didn’t check that. But he used it as a reason to dismiss the proceedings. But he would have found any other reason. Ultimately, this shows that the courts won’t deal with this topic / don’t want to educate themselves on this issue, this scientific clarification or this determination by judgment that the court is consistent and matches up with the law that is violated.

TTV: You also have a separate case, which hasn’t taken place on the 19th of October. Do you have a new appointment?

Unfortunately, I don’t have a new date yet. Let’s see, maybe I’ll get a fine in December sometime.

The problem with my case is that the court already has all these documents in advance. That means, I didn’t submit it unexpectedly / surprisingly in the main hearing, they have already been provided with everything. And there might not be a simple reason for dismissal in my case, because I don’t have a medical certificate and this is my second fine case. So there is actually no reason to just set it up like that. That means we have to at least justify it in the case. I would be happy if that would come to an appointment, but we’ll see.

TTV: Either way, if you have a new appointment, let us know and we’ll do it.

So, to summarize again, we are pretty sure that with this justification, it will be set up… Either it will be dismissed, which is also a success, because you can see how this argumentation puts forward the requests for evidence, and you can see that there’s no substance behind it, and you don’t have to be afraid of anything. Or if a court someday finally takes up this matter one day, there’s really no other way to go about it because according to the DfG and the Infection Protection Act, things are clear, there are actually no two opinions. There is not a single publication in virology where all methods are checked / controlled in SARS-CoV-2 pathogen detection, not a single one.

TTV: Okay Marvin, then let’s see. All the best until next time.

The second video is the one I first only heard via Podcast when I was learning how to get AI to transcribe videos with no subtitles. This is a conversation with Dr Sam Bailey from New Zealand, two months before the above court case.

Marvin vs Virology: COVID Taken To Court | Dr. Sam Bailey

October 11, 2022 DrSamBailey.com – shownotes | Odysee | Rumble | Mp3

Notes from Transcript:

Marvin Haberland is a German engineer who has worked out a way to get the virus existence issue into court. His case should require the virologists to provide evidence that they followed the scientific method when they claimed that SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Martin discusses his academic background, including receiving a Fulbright scholarship to study in the US at UC Berkeley. Despite studying engineering, he became interested in virology and infectious disease topics after his grandmother died of cancer treatments. He mentions discovering scientists like Dr. Kary Mullis and Prof. Peter Duesberg who were critical of the field of virology and surprised to see even Nobel Prize-winning scientists being criticized for asking for scientific evidence. This piqued his interest in exploring these topics further.

Martin describes how he came to understand that the germ theory of disease was flawed. He learned that control experiments consistently falsified the germ theory hypothesis. He delved deep into the topics of Spanish flu, HIV, AIDS, SARS-CoV-1, swine flu, and bird flu, and studied scientific literature dating back to the Rosenau experiments. He became interested in the idea that there is no scientific way to demonstrate contagion.

The Rosenau experiments were a series of experiments conducted by US Army physician and researcher, Milton J. Rosenau, in the early 20th century. The experiments were designed to study the transmission of infectious diseases, and involved exposing healthy volunteers to bodily fluids and secretions from patients with various diseases, including yellow fever, typhoid fever, and diphtheria. None of the healthy patients in the Rosenau experiments got yellow fever, typhoid fever, or diphtheria. The experiments were designed to test the transmission of the diseases, but the healthy patients did not contract them. The conclusion of the Rosenau experiments was that the transmission of disease in an experimental setting could not be reproduced, which led the researchers to question the validity of the germ theory of disease. Specifically, the experiments challenged the idea that microorganisms, such as bacteria or viruses, were the sole cause of infectious diseases. Instead, the researchers suggested that the health of the host and other environmental factors could also play a significant role in the development of disease. ~ chatGPT

Martin began researching the work of scientists such as Stefan Lanka, the Perth Group on HIV/AIDS, and Peter Duesberg. He also followed the German telegram channel Corona Fakten, which provided reports and explanations on how to understand the publications of virologists. He checked the information provided by these sources and was able to verify and validate it for himself. He then downloaded all the publications to read through the method parts.

He became more active and started sending freedom of information requests around the world, including German and Australian institutions. He received confirmation that something was wrong in virology from the responses to his requests.

He talks about how he lives in Germany where there were mask mandates in place, even in certain outdoor areas. He refused to wear a mask and received fines, which allowed him to open a court case, which in Germany, is the only way to bring a topic to court. The court case is related to the effectiveness of masks and its scientific basis, and it has far-reaching implications.

Martin disagrees with the fine he received for not wearing a mask and argues that paragraph one of the German laws of infectious disease, which states that all institutions, authorities, and research institutions must work according to the status quo of the scientific method, is not being fulfilled in virology because there are no scientific controls.

He asked several institutions and authors of studies around the world, and none of them carried out the controls. He also argues that the German Foundation of Science, which issued a regulation on how to work according to the scientific method, supports his argument. He cites Stefan Lanka’s successful court case in 2015 and 2016 with measles as a precedent for his argumentation. Martin believes that every other paragraph in the law, including those with measures, falls apart because paragraph one is not fulfilled.

Martin discusses an important Australian paper by the Doherty Institute which claimed to be the first to isolate SARS-CoV-2 outside of China. He submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Doherty Institute to inquire about their scientific controls for their cell culture and genome sequencing methods. ^{(01)Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, Bond K, Tran T, Kostecki R, Yoga Y, Naughton W, Taiaroa G, Seemann T, Schultz MB, Howden BP, Korman TM, Lewin SR, Williamson DA, Catton MG. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the … Click for full citation}

The authors did not provide adequate documentation for their controls, and when asked about it, they stated that they did not document them. They also did not perform certain scientific controls, claiming they did not have time or capacity for them. The authors lack scientific rigor and the German Foundation of Science emphasizes the importance of documenting and controlling all results. ^{(02)FOI – Germany – Doherty “neglected to use adequate controls when “sequencing”/assembling their in silico “SARS-COV-2 genome”, and thus admitted that their result is anti-scientific … Click for full citation (03)See also: FOI – NZ – 2020 – Doherty “…your request relates to a process which is outside the scope of the usual operations of the Doherty Institute and therefore no documentation is available.” … Click for full citation (04) FOI Doherty Institite Commentary https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/australias-doherty-institute-claimed-to-have-isolated-the-covid-19-virus-aka-sars-cov-2-later-said-they-have-no-record-of-such/}

“So, mock controls will just be a cell line that is untreated. They are provided with nutrition, but no chemicals are added, and no human samples are used. In the methods section of the publication, I read about the chemicals, antibiotics, and steps used in the infected cell culture. I listed them in my question and asked if they had used the exact same procedure for the negative control. They defined a negative control as an experiment where only the independent variable is removed, but all other variables remain the same. This is the correct answer. However, I asked for documentation of this experiment so I could understand it better. They replied that scientific controls like this are not typically documented in publications.

And for the other question, if they used negative controls for their genome sequencing, I asked two questions. One is if they performed an experiment where they tried to calculate other viruses, such as HIV or measles, from the same culture, but with another reference genome for HIV. Have they tried it? They said no, we did not do this control.

Then I asked if they had tried to calculate the SARS-CoV-2 genome from their mock infected cell culture, using the same SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan reference. They said no, we didn’t do it.

Then I asked another question, which was very interesting. I said, “Why didn’t you do scientific controls for this kind of sequencing method?” I think this is the best answer of all because they basically said that at the beginning of the year, SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing was not really available and they didn’t have a lot of capacity to run these kinds of experiments. So they just didn’t sequence the negative culture. Basically, they were saying that they had no time for it. It’s a very unscientific answer.”

Martin discusses the importance of scientific controls and documentation in research, citing the German Foundation of Science’s guidelines. He mentions that the response he received regarding the lack of controls in genome sequencing was honest but unscientific. He also notes that many institutions face similar problems with documentation and controls. He emphasizes that even if controls were carried out for one aspect of the research, it does not excuse the lack of controls in other areas. Lastly, he states that no virologist has claimed to have done controls for genome sequencing.

Martin believes that the mock infected culture they used should have included RNA material from a healthy person and not just a cell line with no additives. He also found it interesting that the Australian publication had trouble finding corona spikes in the electron micrograph of the cell culture and only saw them after adding trypsin.

• The COVID-19 fraud and war on humanity by Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. John Bevan Smith. ^{(05) The COVID-19 fraud and war on humanity by Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. John Bevan Smith. https://drsambailey.com/the-covid-19-fraud-war-on-humanity/}
  1. Kali et al claimed to have found coronavirus particles in cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles in Vero cells, but couldn’t find variants with the spike protein.
  2. They added more trypsin to the cell culture medium, which quickly digested the outer protein layer of the 100 nanometer spherical variant.
  3. This revealed the characteristic crown-like fringes of proteins and improved the variant morphology.
  4. Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. John Bevan Smith highlight the irony of the authors stating that the addition of trypsin “improved variant morphology” without acknowledging that it actually destroyed the outer protein layer.

Martin questions why trypsin was not added to the mock infected culture, as adding it could produce the same result as seen in the Vero cells. He suggests that it would be interesting to ask the researchers why they did not do so.

Martin’s court case argument is simple – he asks for scientific control to be checked. If the judge finds that there was no scientific control, he requests that the judge contact any virologist from any university in the world to carry out these scientific controls and then observe the result. That’s it.

“I even invite the judge to come with me in the lab and observe the scientific control. I think they will understand that this is a very simple step and they can check it in five minutes”

• Dr. Sam Bailey is part of a group called “Settling the Virus Debate Statement” along with Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman, Kevin Corbett and about 20 different scientists and doctors. ^{(06) The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/}
  1. They believe that virologists should conduct experiments with controls and be blinded to prevent bias.
  2. Blinding is important to avoid subjective interpretations of results.
  3. Double-blinded studies are the highest degree of evidence.

Martin says that CoronaFacten in Germany and Switzerland offered funding for scientific controls, but virologists declined to do it, and that many people in Germany are questioning the efficacy of vaccines because vaccinated individuals still get infected. He hopes that after 2 and a half years, that even judges may be starting to question the situation and may judge more independently.

Why do you think from all your investigations, what you’ve looked into that virology, why don’t they do controls? Why don’t they use a scientific method? What’s your feeling of the bigger picture of what’s going on here?

“Yeah, so I don’t think that the majority of these people are bad people. I just think that what they learn in university is basically giving them the impression that the methods they are using are valid. So maybe that’s why they don’t consider that controls would be necessary because they think, “Why do a control? Why bother with it? We have a positive cell culture here, and the virus is there 100%. So we don’t need to control it.” This is, for them, basically “hope virology 101”. So I think they just don’t consider it.

And if they are being asked to carry out controls or if they are being asked why they don’t do it, it might be kind of strange for them because they might never have thought about it. Maybe some did, and the only control that they really try to do sometimes is a mock infected cell culture.

But all the other methods are not controlled at all, never. I think this is the primary reason.

But now, as there is a lot of scientific attention rising on this topic, I think that many of them immediately also understand the issue, but then they are scared. Of course, these are people like you and me, and they might be scared of losing their job. They might be scared of losing funding, and eventually, let’s be honest, if this is coming out, the whole virology discipline will collapse, and they will all be jobless, basically. So this is another problem which we have. First, they are not aware and think their methods are valid, and second, there is this underlying issue of existence problems which will arise, of course.”

Key points:

1. University education may give the impression that methods used are valid, leading to not considering the need for controls
2. Lack of awareness and thought about the necessity of controls in some virology methods
3. With scientific attention rising, some may understand the issue but are scared of job and funding loss
4. The virology discipline may collapse

I think virology is being used as a Trojan horse to control people, to control populations, and it can be done this way because it’s a black box and it’s easily manipulable to find a particular outcome and therefore control masses of people, as we’ve seen with COVID. I don’t see this ending. COVID-19 is just one of the latest ones that’s happening.

“Yeah, I think that there will always be interest groups of people who will use whatever situation occurs to them to broaden their power and extend their power. Like in every case, also in this situation, there are people who use this situation for their benefit.

Of course, in the pharmaceutical industry, all the people ‘who work for’ the vaccine companies like Pfizer, BioNTech, CureVac, Moderna, and so on, are not evil or bad people, but they just think with a dollar in their head, right? So for them, it’s like a gold rush. So they are just biased with this, and without valid controls, they will never understand that what they are doing is not helping anyone and it’s not necessary, effective, working, or valid at all.

If you ask my personal opinion, I think there are people behind that also use the situation to shape the society in the way they would like and according to their principles and ideology. But it’s difficult to prove. That’s why I prefer to always talk about the things that we can prove, the scientific steps, and papers, because there I can be 100% sure nobody can argue. With the other topics, it’s kind of a “What do you think? What is your opinion?” So nobody can prove anything. It’s just what we “think”.

But my personal opinion is very similar to yours. From what I have seen in my research, I have to come to the conclusion that there are people who know the limitations of virology, the problems of it. They know the Rosenau experiments, that contagion is not replicable in an experiment, which basically means it really doesn’t exist in the way we think it works. And there are many people that really know this.

I think even people like Christian Drosten – “the Anthony Fauci of Germany,” the main virologist who came up with the PCR protocol early 2020, which was then accepted by the WHO and sent around the world very quickly. This is a guy who has been in the business for many years. He even carried out the PCR methods in SARS-1 in the early 2000s. So he knows exactly what is going on. He knows exactly what he is doing with the primers and everything. So yeah, I just have to come to the conclusion that there are some people who really know what they are doing and who get a great benefit out of it.”

Just after this video was filmed, we learned that the German courts have postponed Marvin’s case until further notice due to the judge taking “sick leave”.

References from Sam’s show notes:

1. Dr. Mark Bailey – A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition)
2. Dr. Sam Bailey – Secrets of Virology “Control” Experiments
3. Dr. Sam Bailey – The Truth About Virus Isolation
4. Spanish Flu Video – Secrets of Influenza
5. Corona Fakten Telegram Channel
6. German Legislation: Law for the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Humans (Infection Protection Act – IfSG) Paragraph 1
7. DFG Funding, Good Research Practice
8. Wikipedia – German Research Foundation
9. Measles Court Case Protocol Findings
10. Virus Mania – 3rd Edition
11. The Peter Doherty Institute
12. Christine Massey FOIA
13. COVID 19 Fraud & War On Humanity – Part 1 video
14. The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement