German judge rules no masks, no distance, no more tests for pupils, The masks are not only useless, they are also dangerous
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”…Joseph Goebbels
“More than 6,000 healthy children in the U.S. and Canada will be enrolled in the Moderna Covid-19 Vaccine Study for which the benefits to society are nil and the risks unknown.”...Citizen Wells
“it is my sincere hope that this public letter might stimulate FDA, Pfizer and Moderna leaders to think critically and quickly about the immunological danger the COVID-19 vaccine might pose to those persons naturally infected by SARS-CoV-2 — most especially to those infected who are recently convalescent, asymptomatic carriers, the elderly and frail or those with significant cardiovascular risk factors.”...Dr. Hooman Noorchashm
From 2020 News.
“Sensational verdict from Weimar: no masks, no distance, no more tests for pupils
In summary proceedings (Ref.: 9 F 148/21), the Weimar Family Court ruled on 8 April 2021 prohibiting two Weimar schools with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially “qualified” masks such as FFP2 masks); it further prohibited the schools from demanding compliance with AHA minimum distance-keeping; and also prohibited them from demanding that pupils undergo SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the Court ruled that classroom instruction must be face-to-face [i.e. not remote]. Here is the full-text judgment (including three expert opinions).
This is the first time that evidence has been presented to a German court on the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the anti-Corona measures which have been imposed. Those heard as expert witnesses were the public health doctor Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Ulrike Kämmerer.
The legal proceedings are a child protection case pursuant to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB). It was initiated by a mother for her two sons, aged 14 and 8, at the Municipal Court – Family Division. She argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and educationally harmed without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, there was violation of numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, under the constitution and under international conventions.
Proceedings under section 1666 of the Civil Code can be initiated ex officio, either on the proposal of any person, or if, in the best interests of the child, the Court considers intervention to be necessary pursuant to §1697a of the Civil Code, in the absence of any such proposal.
After examining the factual and legal situation and evaluating the expert opinions, the Weimar Family Court has come to the conclusion that the measures – now prohibited – constituted a present danger to the children’s mental, physical and psychological well-being to such an extent that, if they continued without intervention, there was a high degree of certainty of considerable harm being inflicted.
The judge elaborated: “Such a danger is present here. For the children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours, and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but they have already been harmed. At the same time, there is violation of numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies, in particular, to the right to free development of the personality and to physical integrity under Article 2 of the Basic Law, as well as to the right, pursuant to Article 6 of the Basic Law, to parental upbringing and care (also with regard to measures for healthcare and “objects” to be carried by children)….”
With his judgement, the judge confirmed the mother’s assessment: “The children are physically, psychologically and educationally harmed while their rights are violated without any benefit for the children themselves or third parties.”
According to the Court, the school administrators, teachers and others could not invoke the regional state [i.e. “Land”] regulations, on which the measures are based, because these are unconstitutional and therefore null & void. Reason: they violate the principle of proportionality, rooted in the constitutional rule of law (Articles 20, 28 of the Basic Law).
“According to this principle, also known as the prohibition of excess, the measures intended to achieve a legitimate purpose must be suitable, necessary and proportionate in a narrow sense – that is to say: when weighing their advantages and disadvantages. The measures at issue are not evidence-based, contrary to Section 1(2) IfSG, and are already unsuited to achieving the fundamentally legitimate purpose they pursue, namely to avoid overloading the health system or to reduce the incidence of infection with the SARS-CoV- 2 virus. In any case, however, they are, strictly speaking, disproportionate because the considerable disadvantages/collateral damage caused by them are not compensated for by any recognisable benefit for the children themselves or for third parties,” the judge said.
He made clear: “Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that it is not the parties involved who would have to justify the unconstitutionality of the encroachments on their rights, but, rather, the Free State of Thuringia, which with its State law provisions has encroached on the rights of the parties involved, would have to prove with the necessary scientific evidence that the measures it prescribes are suitable to achieve the intended purposes and, if so, that they are proportionate. So far, this has not been done in the remotest.”
1. THE LACK OF BENEFIT OF WEARING MASKS AND OBSERVING DISTANCE RULES FOR THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES AND THIRD PARTIES
With her assessment of the complete international data on masks the expert Professor Kappstein convinced the Court that the scientific evidence does not support the idea of the effectiveness of masks for healthy people in public.
The ruling states: “Likewise, ‘third-party protection’ and ‘unnoticed transmission’, which the RKI [Robert-Koch Institute] used to justify its ‘re-evaluation’, are not supported by scientific facts. Plausibility, mathematical estimates and subjective assessments in opinion pieces cannot replace population-based clinical epidemiological studies. Experimental studies on the filtering performance of masks and mathematical estimates are not suitable to prove effectiveness in real life. While international health authorities advocate the wearing of masks in public spaces, they also say that there is no evidence from scientific studies to support this. Indeed, all currently available scientific evidence suggests that masks have no effect on the incidence of infection. None of the publications that are cited as evidence for the effectiveness of masks in public spaces allow this conclusion. The same also applies to the so-called Jena Study, as the expert explains in detail in her report. This is because the Jena study – like the vast majority of other studies, a purely mathematical estimation or modelling study, based on theoretical assumptions without real contact tracing, and with authors from the field of macroeconomics without epidemiological knowledge – fails to take into account the decisive epidemiological circumstance, as explained in detail by the expert, that the infection levels had already declined significantly before the introduction of mandatory masks in Jena on 6 April 2020 (about three weeks later in the whole of Germany), and that there was no longer any relevant incidence of infection in Jena as early as the end of March 2020.”
The masks are not only useless, they are also dangerous, rules the Court: “Every mask, as the expert explained, must, in order in principle to be effective, be worn correctly. Masks can become a contamination risk if they are touched. However, in the first place, people do not wear them properly; secondly, people often touch the masks with their hands. This can also be observed with politicians who are seen on television. The population was not instructed how to use masks properly, it was not explained how to wash their hands when out & about, or how to perform effective hand disinfection. Furthermore, it was not explained why hand hygiene is important and that one must be careful not to touch one’s eyes, nose and mouth with one’s hands. The population was virtually left alone with the masks. The risk of infection is not only not reduced by wearing the masks but increased by the incorrect handling of the mask. In her expert opinion, the expert witness sets this out in just as much detail as the fact that, and for what reasons, it is “unrealistic” to achieve the appropriate handling of masks by the population.””
Protect the children.