Judge Götz: 'an expert has established with a probability bordering on certainty' that a dead man's Covid infection came from his neighbour--based on PCR (junk) tests
Ironically, comparing two viral samples for genetic similarity is a legitimate use of the PCR test, in contrast to the diagnostic misuse that was forced on the populace.
Everything else here is nuts. Why wouldn’t two people in the same apartment block have been exposed to the exact same strain, at a time when omicron was going round the world? Maybe she gave it to him; or maybe he gave it to her; or they both got it from the daughter-in-law, or from the postman; or maybe the defendant never had it like she says and was only exposed; or who the hell knows?
This ought to be thrown out on appeal, unless the higher court judges are as stupid and/or ill-intentioned as madame judge here.
The part Epimetheus mostly skipped over, about the defendant being known as a covid denier, is I imagine the real crux of the case: she was a non-conformer about the death cult, let her neighbors know what she thought, and this is their and the state’s slightly belated revenge.
Agreed on all of these points--my main beef here is this: the premise that PCR permits a diagnosis is wrong, hence even the correct use of the comparison is downstream.
I think you're correct about the allegation of the defendant being a 'Covid denier' is the key point here: it's why I pointed to her attending GP talking to the police as well as the fact that the appeal came at the request of the public prosecutor.
It's not 'just' the judge; it's also the GP, the police, and the prosecutor who are still (!!!) gaslighting themselves and punishing others.
This Austrian law making it illegal to knowingly infect another person: I can see it being applied to, say, an STD or a Typhoid Mary situation.
Leaving aside whether having such a law is a good idea at all, if they can successfully prosecute for spreading an airborne respiratory virus, then yeah, they’ll be able to convict virtually anyone.
I think if, for instance, you know you have an STD and f*** around w/o telling your intimate partners, it constitutes 'assault' or 'battery'. Have fun proving this conclusively in court, though.
This is the background to these proceedings, and while I haven't looked up the titles of that law, I'm unsure (but I wouldn't be surprised) if these morons included airborne respiratory viruses into these categories.
It's lawfare, plain and simple: in the HIV-positive person whores around w/o telling his or her intimate partners (which is why that passage is on the books), this makes a certain amount of sense (leaving aside consideration of personal responsibility, or lack thereof). With airborne respiratory illnesses, way less so.
Given the judge's comment as to 'tough luck, we caught you', this of course massively increases arbitrariness in judicial proceedings and moves our judiciary even further towards tyranny.
All over EUrope, LGBTWTFBBQ+ groups are fighting for the following:
>To have AIDS/HIV taken off the communicable diseases-lists as they pertain to laws regulating responsibility for infecting someone
>To remove any legal compulsion for the infected to notify a sex partner of the infection
>To waive the legal requirement to use protectives such as condoms, if the person knows he is infected
>To make it illegal for staff at blood collection offices to ask for sexual predilection
>To make it legal for HIV-infected to donate blood anonymously
And more, and worse.
I mention this as a perspective on the case you mention: science matters not, common sense or rights matters not: the only thing that matters is, are you aligned with the regime's narrative, or not?
That's my reading of it, yes; the same applies to 'transgender medicine™', which also removes any kind of liability from the attending (sic) physicians and surgeons.
Got castrated at age 13 and regret it once you're a high school senior? Your choice, and you signed these waivers while on synthetic hormones.
It's even worse than what happens in Germany and Austria with respect to the normalised hate spewed at our 'Trump deplorables'. Some shops are now even informing their customers that, 'if you vote AfD, please shop elsewhere'. True story.
Oh, Die Welt was my point of departure, which led me to ORF and finally to the local newspapers. (ORF copied from the latter.)
It's insane, start to finish, esp. since we now know so much more about the tests (did the court actually look at, say, cycle thresholds? I didn't see anything it, but I know that, e.g., Austrian PCR tests included such details while Norwegian ones didn't).
So, the more one looks/asks about details, the worse this gets--because I fail to see how any sensible person, let alone a judge, can still make these claims in light of, say, the RKI Files. It's a disgrace and this verdict should be thrown out (as these judges and public prosecutors should be, too) as fast as possible for gross misconduct and 'administering justice' based on, well, what exactly? Fantasy? Wishful thinking?
I mean, I feel bad about that dead man; but here the oft-discussed, if supremely moronic, issue of dying of vs. with Covid becomes relevant once more: the piece says 'pneumonia induced by Covid'. Would that mean he died of pneumonia but with Covid? Or with Covid but of pneumonia? I mean, this is not even hare-brained. There is nothing 'there' that makes sense other than, well, the wrecking of the judiciary.
Ironically, comparing two viral samples for genetic similarity is a legitimate use of the PCR test, in contrast to the diagnostic misuse that was forced on the populace.
Everything else here is nuts. Why wouldn’t two people in the same apartment block have been exposed to the exact same strain, at a time when omicron was going round the world? Maybe she gave it to him; or maybe he gave it to her; or they both got it from the daughter-in-law, or from the postman; or maybe the defendant never had it like she says and was only exposed; or who the hell knows?
This ought to be thrown out on appeal, unless the higher court judges are as stupid and/or ill-intentioned as madame judge here.
The part Epimetheus mostly skipped over, about the defendant being known as a covid denier, is I imagine the real crux of the case: she was a non-conformer about the death cult, let her neighbors know what she thought, and this is their and the state’s slightly belated revenge.
Agreed on all of these points--my main beef here is this: the premise that PCR permits a diagnosis is wrong, hence even the correct use of the comparison is downstream.
I think you're correct about the allegation of the defendant being a 'Covid denier' is the key point here: it's why I pointed to her attending GP talking to the police as well as the fact that the appeal came at the request of the public prosecutor.
It's not 'just' the judge; it's also the GP, the police, and the prosecutor who are still (!!!) gaslighting themselves and punishing others.
Definitely agree that the phony diagnostic use of PCR is folded up in here as well.
I think it's the root cause here: without PCR 'results', no comparisons are possible, hence the entire case should (must) be thrown out.
Indeed. Everybody has had Covid by now, and everybody who has had it had been infected by someone else. Off to prison we all go!
This Austrian law making it illegal to knowingly infect another person: I can see it being applied to, say, an STD or a Typhoid Mary situation.
Leaving aside whether having such a law is a good idea at all, if they can successfully prosecute for spreading an airborne respiratory virus, then yeah, they’ll be able to convict virtually anyone.
I think if, for instance, you know you have an STD and f*** around w/o telling your intimate partners, it constitutes 'assault' or 'battery'. Have fun proving this conclusively in court, though.
This is the background to these proceedings, and while I haven't looked up the titles of that law, I'm unsure (but I wouldn't be surprised) if these morons included airborne respiratory viruses into these categories.
I suppose that's the point here.
I guess after this there is no innocent sneeze anymore. We could all be potential killers.
It's lawfare, plain and simple: in the HIV-positive person whores around w/o telling his or her intimate partners (which is why that passage is on the books), this makes a certain amount of sense (leaving aside consideration of personal responsibility, or lack thereof). With airborne respiratory illnesses, way less so.
Given the judge's comment as to 'tough luck, we caught you', this of course massively increases arbitrariness in judicial proceedings and moves our judiciary even further towards tyranny.
Scary. If all systems crash we are getting close to wild-west-standards.
To make a parallel:
All over EUrope, LGBTWTFBBQ+ groups are fighting for the following:
>To have AIDS/HIV taken off the communicable diseases-lists as they pertain to laws regulating responsibility for infecting someone
>To remove any legal compulsion for the infected to notify a sex partner of the infection
>To waive the legal requirement to use protectives such as condoms, if the person knows he is infected
>To make it illegal for staff at blood collection offices to ask for sexual predilection
>To make it legal for HIV-infected to donate blood anonymously
And more, and worse.
I mention this as a perspective on the case you mention: science matters not, common sense or rights matters not: the only thing that matters is, are you aligned with the regime's narrative, or not?
That's my reading of it, yes; the same applies to 'transgender medicine™', which also removes any kind of liability from the attending (sic) physicians and surgeons.
Got castrated at age 13 and regret it once you're a high school senior? Your choice, and you signed these waivers while on synthetic hormones.
It's a disgrace.
Giving me WW2 style chills .. isn’t this what they started with about the Jews & blacks & others … before taking them away
It's even worse than what happens in Germany and Austria with respect to the normalised hate spewed at our 'Trump deplorables'. Some shops are now even informing their customers that, 'if you vote AfD, please shop elsewhere'. True story.
🫢😳
When I read about this yesterday in WELT, I wondered if I should send you a link, but then I was pretty sure that you would know about it anyway...
Oh, Die Welt was my point of departure, which led me to ORF and finally to the local newspapers. (ORF copied from the latter.)
It's insane, start to finish, esp. since we now know so much more about the tests (did the court actually look at, say, cycle thresholds? I didn't see anything it, but I know that, e.g., Austrian PCR tests included such details while Norwegian ones didn't).
So, the more one looks/asks about details, the worse this gets--because I fail to see how any sensible person, let alone a judge, can still make these claims in light of, say, the RKI Files. It's a disgrace and this verdict should be thrown out (as these judges and public prosecutors should be, too) as fast as possible for gross misconduct and 'administering justice' based on, well, what exactly? Fantasy? Wishful thinking?
I mean, I feel bad about that dead man; but here the oft-discussed, if supremely moronic, issue of dying of vs. with Covid becomes relevant once more: the piece says 'pneumonia induced by Covid'. Would that mean he died of pneumonia but with Covid? Or with Covid but of pneumonia? I mean, this is not even hare-brained. There is nothing 'there' that makes sense other than, well, the wrecking of the judiciary.
😳😳😳😳