Certified transcript ,------------------------------------"" ""
'
Az.:4 0 346/13 ENTRANCE
I
I
1 5. APR. 2015
I
r
District court .
.
Ravensburg
Protoco.11
added in the public meeting of the Landgeriright Ravensburg, 4th civil chamber, on
Thursday, ·03/12/2015in Ravensburg
Currently:
Presiding judge at the district court Schneider
as presiding judge
Judge Dr. Brutscher Richter
ondistrict Court Percic
From the involvement of a protocol leader was acc. § 159 para. 1 ZPO apart.
By doing Litigation
Litigants:
Lawyers Gebhardt & Colleagues, Eisenbahnstrafse 47 / corner of Sieberstrafse, 66424 Hom
burg, Gz .: 60453 RVB / kr
versus
Dr. StefanLanka, Ludwig-Durr-Weg 5/2, 88085 Langenargen
- defendant -
Litigants:
Lawyers wagner - Barth, Station traffic 1, 66663 Merzig, Gz .: 13-833-12 because of
offlabove
appear at Calling the thing:
The plaintiff With Attorney Dr. Gebhardt,
page 2
the defendant with attorney Barth and assessor Schreiner, the
expert Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski.
Attorney Dr. Gebha [dt makes the application from the application of 20.11.2013,
Sheet 2 and from the extension brief of 1.8.2014, Sheet 80. ·
Attorney Barth applies for dismissal.
It is in diA supplementary hearing of the expert occurred.
He declares
to be
person:
Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas P odbie I ski. , Institute for Medical Microbiologylogie, Virologie and Hy
giene, University Medicine Restock, Schillingallee 70, 18057 Restok, 59 years old, University
professor, with the parties ninot related and not divorced.
Down to business:
l will first make my written report dated November 17, 2014 and my supplementary opinion dated
March 3, 2015 the subject of my todayito executionrinungen.
I can also answer the Chamber's questions:
In general, you shouldipublic in biology with a ,,Evidence" beforeibe powerful, we actually only
speak van ,,Occupy".
When it comes to the connection between microorganisms and diseases, seeind twoi Ask
questionsiThe first question is, whether there is any one at allten microorganism exists and
welnature of this; e.g.uIn the other, it may be necessary to clarify whether it is factually causally
significantt for the disease; solely from the presence of the microrga nism! does not accept such a
causal relationshiplegen.
What now the existence of the Miis concerned with the microorganism, there are many grand the
sameivaluable ways. Typically in biology we require that two independent paths be followed to
prove the existence of a microorganism
and classify it taxonomically.
The classic way is optical detection using microscopic methods. In the case of viruses, you even
have to work with the electron microscope. In this context, the question of size always arises. The
pictures and the big question are usually secondary. The images are open to any interpretation
and have little evidence in themselves, but only make things vivid.
For others, the components of a pathogen can be demonstrated. As such, only proteins are
considered. Carbohydrates and nucleic acids. Usually all three are present. Here you can work
with purification and detection methods.
A pathogen would typically be expected, that it can multiply. Hence the method of cultural proof
dieses Keirns. This method is problematic in this respect, than that they don't always workiThis is
because, for example, the multiplication of a seed in the laboratory is not easily imitatedren! asst.
That applies to a good part of today's zudays of known germs.
Another step can then be, that one understands the multiplication of the brain as a cleaning step
and startslhe then again microscopically examines the pathogen to determine whether its
appearance has not changed ist; you can also check whether the biochemistry of the brain is as
before.
BetweeniCurrently, in addition to these methods, there is the possibility of isolating and
completely sequencing the nucleic acids. From the outset, this is an independent by-pass,
which is also significant for the movementileadership can be.
For the latterte method exists ein prominent example with the hepathiteiSC virus, which was
never cultivated, but was immediately analyzed in its genome sequence. The nucleusiFor
example, the acid sequence in the measles virus would also allow it, to produce this
microorganism fully synthetic in a test tubeieren. On the one hand, this method is nieasy, on the
other exposed to ethical issues. But this shows the lndistrong nucleic acid sequence.
So far erlocalized methods only concern the existence of the brain itself, still
page 4
not its function as a pathogen.
As I understood the announcement, it was probably only about the existence itself.
At the request of the court. at least as a precaution with regard to the causal relationship
between microorganism and disease illustrate the importance of Henle-Koch postulates. the
expert explains:
These postulates are a mental support from a time, als you just learned,
that there can be a connection between microorganisms and infectious diseases. The postulates
are aimed at iTheir original wording at that time, i.e. from around 1850, known pathogens, i.e. at
a time, long before viruses were known as such. This latter fact also illuminates the problem of
applying certain rules to objects, which only after the formulation of the rulesl be known at all.
The Henle-Koch postulates are four-part in their classic form, as in my opinion . Because you
have determined, that in certain other cases.These postulates for proving causality are not
unconditionalinzuhalare, the postulates were typically extended by three points. One is the
aspect of the defense reaction that only emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. D was
discoveredinge
such as antibodies or defense cells, mit welthe organism specifically fights the pathogens. It was
also formulated that, in in vitro experiments, a similar cytopathology sich should result as in
people themselves. This requirement is particularly with Virs important that outside of a human
beinglI do not live independently of the host organism.
Finally, I am concerned with the question of whether selective eradication can contribute to the
clinical recovery of the patient.
With these three extensions, in different combinations with the original postulates, one can and
must apply these postulates to all pathogens known today.
Today there is also the genome sequence. Basically you can in the genome read quenz like in a
book. It!are very likely to make statements about how sich an organism behaves with a certain
genome sequence and welproperties he shows.
page 5
At the request of the court, whether the evidence of causation of infection in a pathogen in
This last-mentioned form is only possible on the basis of the genome sequence: No, only in
this form is not possiblelI. You can only achieve computer models with correspondingly high
probability values here, but you cannot bring about an immediate selection.·
After dictation up to this point, the expert adds on his own initiative:
I have to clarify that we cannot derive the properties or behavior of an organism from the genome
sequence alone. Wir can only have structural features average and more or less likely to predict
how the organ will behave must behave in a certain way; a comprehensive statement on overall
behavior
also don't allow the genome sequence yet.
The Chamber's further question:
Of the total, certainly a good 10.000 scientific articles on measles, a large part of which deal with
people with illness, Detection and control. With regard to the articles submitted by the plaintiff, it
must first be stated, that Enders & Pee ble's contribution_s 1954 is certainly fundamental, it was
the first article ever on this question. How toie wanted to evaluate selection in the other, is
maybe also a question of taste. Since it likes
there are some other articles which, at one point or another, could have presented the evidence or
the chain of evidence in the sense of the advertisement even more clearly. Overall
but I stick to my assessment that the six articles submitted meet the conditions of the tender
together.
The session was briefly interrupted.
After being called up again with the aforementioned parties, the Chamber thematized the
understanding of the award and pointed it out, that, in the board's view, the claim should be
understood very clearly in that not only the mere existence of a certain microorganism should be
proven, but also its causality for measles disease.
When asked by the court. whether the summary assessment of the evidentiary value of the
submitted
article not only with regard to the existence of micro-anism, but also related to . The expert
explains that the pathogen's properties may be understood:
Indeed, one may know that so far understood. These articles are practically not only about the
existence of the microorganism, but also about its excitatory properties. I have this in detail in
my report, especially with a view to Henle-Koch's postulates,each executed. So I also have a
referencelI the excitatory property of the microorganism that the articles presented look together
and especially including the review article from 1995 and the works mentioned there the Beweis
also provide for the pathogen properties of the measles virus.
On follow-up of the chamber. why the expert despite methodical criticism of the one individual
original works as a result also the proof of causality in submitted to the plaintiff ten See articles
as completed:
I have to point out that, of course, everyone is published in a scientific journal
te work may have weak points; The correct way for science to deal with such weaknesses,
however, would be to submit your own scientific article and discuss things.
As far as the individual original articles are concerned, I can explain:
Enders & Peebles' contribution in 1954 definitely fulfills Henle-Koch's postulates of classic
formulation No. 1 and 2. There is even a certain biochemical characterization (temperature
sensitivity) and a statement on the size.
In the contribution by Bech & von Magnus 1958 the third classic Henle-Koch postulate is then
fulfilled. We have also demonstrated the defense response in this postin the expanded version of
these postulates as outlined is of concern. In fact, it was an attemptin the The sense of the 4th
classically formulated Henle-Koch postulate was not carried out at the time.
As for the other three original papers, these deal mainly with the size and electron microscopic
representation of the measles virus and to a certain extent fall out of this assessment.
The 1995 review article cites and then presents several articles which, with regard to the measles
virus, fulfill all of the postulates No. 1 to 4 in the classic formulation. Thereforeis as a whole, it
should be noted that the articles submitted by Henle-Koch Post late classic wording in indeed
prove. In addition, as already mentioned, there is the defense reaction
. .
as well as a specific cytopathologie, namely the formation of van Syntyzien, so cell fusion·-
tongues, als typifor paramyxovers, to which the measlesirus zahaccording to
At the request of the Gerimportant:
I can't say now, whether it is eithere is an article, the comprehensive direpresents the same
things as the mentioned OriGinal article, without showing their methodological weaknesses, i.e.
at spatlwith the negative controls that are indeed missing. In which ich in this together menhang
again points out that certain parts of the experimental setup are in the original articles by' 54 and'
58 have a certain control function.
Decisiveint me the following: Such scientific articles werthe yes used for follow-up work of other
Wissenschaftler.Es sich here as a result of a good cleaning mechanism in the
specialistiestablished, that too in jmost recent time for teil Arti
made of high-stranded Fachzeiaffected. If the processes described in the article simply cannot be
understood in subsequent tests!, this is typically found in articles by other researchers. At least
with eiIn a topic as intensively dealt with in research as measles, that would be siexpected more.
The expert adds on his own initiative:
It must be conceded that when certain things in the world of science akare accepted, that it's
not easy then, oppositeito publish results, you have to anfight. On the other hand, it is an
extremely high incentive, especially when it comes to a broadly accepted thingiz for scientists,
with a view to reputation alone, to publish new and better knowledge hereie.g.ieren. Experience
shows
also, that such refutations in turn are also very high-ranking publcan be specified nen. Against this
background one became, with allr difficulty, really have to expect that sich for well-documented
opposite result-e a publicationion fande.
When Assessor Schreiner asked whether die differences made by the expert between proof
and seleg means that a moveis for die circumstances in question here ultimately ninot to drive:
I have to greetipublic clarificationlen, that evidence in the classical sense, such as in mathematics
or physicsik in biology absolutely nican not drive. In biology, from the outsetin always only lndizien
collected, which at some point in their summary become practically evidential.
Follow-up by assessor Schreiner. whether this fact narrows the weight of evidence:
No, as biological research has been done for many decades, this is not the case.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner. whether the criticism of the early original works. about that
the arfrom 1954 did not fulfill Henle-Koch's postulate 3. do not lead to this. that these jobs are
unusable. or whether one could lean on such work at all:
It is not the job of specialist articles on microbiological matters, that each specialist article in
itself fulfills all four of these Henle-Koch postulates; As we can see, some articles don't deal
with it at all. Each article has its scope and content. In an article you wanted the demands of all
four hen
fully comply with le-Koch postulates. the article became welll so extensive that given the
requirements of the publisher, it might not be able to be published at all. So in itself there is
no shortcoming.
Follow-up by assessor Schreiner. whether beyond publisher specifications then maybe Books
or dissertations of a similar kind existed:
Dissertations are difficult to see. Eine original monograph, which firstls own investigations
thererposed, I was not known in the manner in question.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner. whether the previously recorded statement of expertise
geneabout publications. those in the 0 reviewl aus1995 are mentioned. not mean. that it just give
publications. which all four Henle-Koch postulates meet:
I have to clarify this, that my previous statement was not meant in this sense.l can only say that
individual aspects of the later work presented in the review article can also be assessed as
fulfilling certain Henle-Koch postulates. An individual job, I really do not know which of all four
postulates was fulfilled.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner. whether for the EiOrdering a publication as ... knowledge
scientificiche publication "in addition to the control system mentioned by the expert is also
required. that there are further checks as to whether the experiment was carried out correctly
and in particular documented:
The obligations to document what is behind a subject typeikel stands in the
changed in the last 50 years, in some cases seriously. An essential point of view in this respect
are the possibilities available today, in particular through the electronic media, which, on a much
larger scale, allow oats to be provided. The documentation requirements for scientific journals
were certainly much narrower in the 1950s than today.
When Assessor Schreiner asked whether it would not be terribly easy. the attempts at that time to
catch up today with today's means and to publish an article not subject to methodological criticism
today:
For this I have in my report and the supplementary statement already stated that there is a
profitability requirement for the research institutions; no financier will give you funds to prove things
thatin the specialistlt already
are proven. No publication organ will be found for such works.
Thrown in by assessor Schreiner. that evidence is a problem:· In any case, the
overwhelming mass of scientists understands these things as shown as proven.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner, in particular, which are the components of the measles virus
re whether the measles virus contains ribosomes:
No, the measles virus does not contain ribosomes. The common definition of the virus is that
it has no ribosomes.
Assessor Schreiner then speaks the communication from the Ro alleged by the defendant
bert-Koch institute, according to which ribosomes are contained in the measles virus: on his question
whether eggSuch a statement did not, as it were, overturn the whole concept of the measles virus:
Such a message would indeed be extremely astonishing, it attracted the greatest attention in the
specialist sciences and could be published with the prospect of a major impact. The concept of the
virus was not necessarily overthrown by this; the conceptual understanding of the virus is definitely in
flux.
The expert adds on his own initiative:
I want to make it clear that this latter statement is the concept of the virus all in all concerns. One
hasidescribed viruses that are much larger than bacteria. Difficult taxonomic questions arise
here. With regard to the measles virus, however, such questions
not currently.
When Assessor Schreiner asked whether the expert also provided a summary Publications
that have already been published see their scientific work without reproducing their own
research results:
Yes, of course.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner. whether this also applies in particular to those
submitted by the plaintiff Top work from 1995 applies:
Yes. This work was published in a journal, which was peer-reviewed-System)rwill be disclosed.
Such reviews (reviews) are also examined in advance, on the one hand on the consistency of
the presentation and the conclusions drawn, and on the other also on the inclusion or exclusion
of relevant specialist articles. By the way, the publication of your own research results is a
mandatory requirement for this type of publication; It will be painfuli.I made sure that there is no
mixing here.
After Assessor Schreiner's follow-up, whereupon the examination takes place:
Whether the parts from the original articles that are reproduced in such a review are actually
reproduced correctly and whether the relevant parts are selected; new conclusions were drawn
from their research results)itkels is whether these new conclusions are self-containediG and
appear coherent.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner whether the expert could now easily state which of the
original articles in the 1995 review cite the Henle-Koch postulates te 1 to 4 fulfilled:
No, I can't do that right now. But I have to remind you that not at all
All four postulates must be fulfilled for a pathogen to be accepted as such. As already shown,
there are recognized pathogens in which not all four postulates are at all feasiblelt can be. To
this extent, these postulates have softened as shown.
The session was interrupted for consultation and then continued with the aforementioned parties -
puts.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner, how big the measles virus is now:
l can't memorize numerical orders for this. l have already explained in more detail in my report that
d13ss and why it concerns variable groups that can be found in the literature under discussion.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner. whether all six submitted articles are listed:
Yes, the NCBI database I mentioned only lists articles that come from peer-reviewed journals.
When asked by Assessor Schreiner. as related to the article by baikoku and others 2007 the
typical changes in the cell mentioned on the one hand relate to the other Different sizes and
shapes shown:
To do this I I actually read the article carefully. This canI do not say anything here and now.
No further questions are addressed to the expert.
The expert approves his information on the basis of loud dictation and from all sides -
Printing / renouncement of repeated auditions .
. The parties are in dispute about the result of the evidence and the matter with the applications
set out at the beginning.
No further requests will be made.
The session was interrupted again.
After recall, the following verdict is announced by reading out the sentence formula:
1. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff:
a) 100,000.00 EUR plus annual interest from this in High of 5 percentage points
above the base rate since May 1, 2012,
b) EUR 2,924.07 at extrajudicial costs,
c) EUR 492.54 plus annual interest from this amounting to 5 percentage points
above the respective base rate since April 16, 2014.
2. The defendant bears the costs of the legal dispute.
3. The judgment is against security deposit in the amount of 110% of the respectivels to
enforce the amount temporarily enforceable.
The expert will be released undamaged at 12.30 p.m.
cutter Cried, JHSekr'in
Presiding Judge at Regional Court as a clerk of the office for the correctness
and completeness of the transfer from the
recordings.
Page 13
Beglused
Ravensburg, 13rd.04.2015
:; · s tinder officele lie
a processing certified rift
valid
A .· e? ev 1 {t k CAJ11d v-e·t u, .'(
eut d / ,,, t, (_ £ (1st_fe-
£: / ,(, _r ,,
/ -e, fai .au J
. a/ . // 00, CCO r -e ', {,, 1 £ / h ,, L ;old. .JrWU½t. / 4f? Ta, t.?,
'}
r. b
l?} H., L.
/ '/
[,(Jc r . ,,e:.r ±: J
, <._
/'
J
1.-
/
" ,,
... ,1/F? , / 4, (/ 1 ,,fi: "C - vv( 1/10-V -
r7) L, /_ .--
; 0 _(
tUwt , _ / c•2nd , & nJ / f / t v ; "? a /.,z .. / f8t > ....
/ 1 • s: 1' I. 2nd )/1/ i ' 1,,.,, /
¢) 2nd , 9 c YI. O"f +: ci-,t1-.- ' ;c/_ •11t ti A;.
.. , , ,: 2.1 .
{-V .
c \ I. / 9?;,571 C. ue, i, 1 /. /-& U c, tfL.tt
J lr,U u, tc
iftt S ;; tfftv ···
r ..
t,(. / -y & {,, f. / 1 ) 1 J t) t .•C. -Jil, £ -t
y ·
V /)8th' ae ,, (., t, (
,t '-7
i l 6: 0 - /. R ? - /, 0,;? P /,
9
L
r1 £> 1 / / f ,r ff, t? t) / iy ,,
: /. 'AC. fi from left: e,w ,: lj ,,J kf!
e, lfnk ,;H / 4.1JI-
& 4'.t 'lc- .
,, .
