Temat: Koronawirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)

Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918.69 His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”69 (p. 313)

The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results.70–72 It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.

Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated
the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of
evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention
from the essential points.
According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas
Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University
Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the
existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by
Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with
internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect
evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a
“methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the
subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”).
Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good
science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection
Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of
infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these.
The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or
publish the results.
Dr. Lanka: “With the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial any national and international
statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of
vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of
their legal basis.”