1.5 million € prize for proof of a coronavirus! An update from Germany

PhD takes bizarre approach to claiming a prize

February 18, 2024 newsletter

Greetings and Best Wishes,

Below is a recent account by investigative journalist Torsten Engelbrecht of an ongoing “coronavirus” dispute in Germany involving entrepreneur Samuel Eckert’s long-standing offer of a 1.5 million Euro reward for any:

“virologist who presents scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control experiments of all steps taken in the proof.”

Professor Ulrike Kämmerer has taken a “novel” approach to the offer: insisting that “viruses exist” and attempting to the claim the prize yet refusing to provide her supposed “proof”. 😂

Mike Stone (viroLIEgy.com), Jeffrey Strahl and I add our voices to those challenging Ulrike Kämmerer to make public the “proof” that she claims to have. Others find Ulrike’s behaviour too ridiculous to even merit a response.

Torsten Engelbrecht is a co-author of Virus Mania and obtained admissions from authors of early “SARS-COV-2” studies that they did not purify the particles passed off as “viruses” – making clear that they were not studied scientifically – see Torsten’s home page.

Stefan Lanka is the former virologist who historically exposed virology as pseudoscience in the higher court, OLG Stuttgart. The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe rejected his opponent’s attempt to appeal.

Christine

Coronavirus detection: How scientifically sound is Ulrike Kämmerer’s approach?

The immunology professor claimed the reward at the end of 2022, which offers prize money of 1.5 million Euros for the presentation of “scientific proof of the existence of a coronavirus”. But she still hasn’t presented anything – and she doesn’t want to answer any questions on the topic. And yet, at the end of December, she finally assured us that she could “hand over the proof of the virus”.

By Torsten Engelbrecht
Published on January 19, 2024 by TE.

“One of the greatest strengths of American science is that even a professor of the highest rank must feel obliged to take criticism seriously and heed it even when it is voiced by the most ordinary technician or student.”
— Nobel laureate Howard Temin

Würzburg immunology professor Ulrike Kämmerer claimed the “Isolate Truth Fund” award from Samuel Eckert (supported by Jens Böcken-feld from the Grosse Freiheit TV channel) at the end of 2022. The fund offers prize money in the amount of 1.5 million Euros, for the person who “presents scientific proof of the existence of a coronavirus“. However, even after more than a year, the two parties have made no real progress.

Kämmerer consistently refuses to present the evidence that she and her lawyers claim she is in possession of. And not only that.

In contrast to Samuel Eckert, who has willingly answered critical questions on the topic – for example in an interview with Transition News and Transition TV at the end of November 2022 – Kämmerer, like her lawyers Tobias Ulbrich and Wilfried Schmitz, persistently refuse to answer even a single question.

This is all the more surprising when you consider that Kämmerer is not afraid to make clear public statements on the subject. This was most recently the case at the Corona Committee meeting 187 on December 29, 2023.

*Ulrike Kämmerer speaks in detail about the “Isolate Truth Fund” at the end of December 2023 in the Corona Committee; source: Odysee channel from the Corona Committee*

In it, Kämmerer and Wolfgang Wodarg passthe ball back and forth for a quarter of an hour and discuss everything possible, as far as this topic is concerned (see here from 1:16:00 to 1:30:00). For example, they discussed the question of “whether Samuel Eckert is still alive at all” (which is undoubtedly the case, as can easily be “determined”).

There is also a lot of discussion about how inappropriate it is to ask the question of whether viruses such as the coronavirus have actually been detected. Wodarg, for example, says that this discussion is “so superfluous that I always asked myself: How come someone even starts something like this? (…) This discussion doesn’t actually exist in medicine.” He no longer wanted to answer questions on this topic.

Kämmerer, in turn, emphasizes again that she would be able to “hand over proof of the virus”.

Kämmerer’s lawyer Wilfried Schmitz, for his part, even held the cover page of the document which is supposed to provide the alleged Corona proof into the camera at Corona Committee Meeting 155, broadcast on May 12, 2023. The catch: the contents of this document are still unknown to this day – and even when I asked, Schmitz refused to provide the document for this cover sheet. He simply wrote back, among other things:

“I have publicly stated that Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer’s evidence of ‘a’ corona virus exists. I could have made that clear without holding up a piece of paper. The paper was therefore completely irrelevant, especially since – clearly – it was not held up in such a way that it would become the subject of debate (…) I have more important things to do than deal with your irrelevant questions.”

Kämmerer’s lawyer Wilfried Schmitz (right) holds a cover sheet up to the camera during the Corona Committee meeting 155, which is said to be part of a document containing proof of a coronavirus. On the left is former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on February 5, 2003 accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction and thus justified the US intervention in Iraq. Powell later apologized for the lies spread in his speech. Comment from the Telegram channel Next Level: It seems that the cover sheet held up to the camera by Schmitz “*will go down in the annals of scientific history – not as evidence, but as a symbol of the art of illusion*”; Source: Next Level Telegram channel

Kämmerer made similar comments at the end of 2022. She is quoted in a press release from her lawyer Ulbrich’s office with the following statement:

“Viruses, including the SARS-CoV-2 virus, exist and their existence has been proven” (Transition News reported).

They are also not afraid to go on the verbal offensive. In the aforementioned communication, Kämmerer is also quoted as saying that “there is a suspicion of fraud attached to the award”. And Ulbrich himself wrote to us: “If he [= Samuel Eckert] continues to run the event as a cheater, the only thing left is criminal prosecution.“

In view of the expressed “suspicion of fraud”, the accusation of “cheating” and the fact that Kämmerer announced more than once to the public that she had the evidence necessary to fulfill the promise, but that she did not want to “give it away” and obviously still doesn’t want to, Transition News sent her and her lawyers several questions.

Unfortunately, none of the questions have been answered concretely to date. Thesole purpose of these questions is to clarify the facts from the ground up.

Kämmerer attempted to turn the tables, so to speak, in the Corona committee meeting at the end of December by saying:

“Samuel Eckert has more or less completely disappeared from the scene for a year now. We just don’t know: Does he exist? Is he still alive? We’re going to make a counter-offer. I offer the requested proof of coronavirus for proof of the existenceof Samuel and [his wife] Mira Eckert. Proof is to be provided by a personal and joint appearance with official identification documents at one of the lawyers who have been authorized by me (or Frank) to accept the offer of the Samira Family.”

But this raises the question of whether this is simply a tactic to avoid presenting what is claimed to be proof of the virus for whatever reason. Because, as I said, it would have been easy to establish that Samuel Eckert is still “alive”.

The question also arises, which is part of the list of questions that I or Transition News repeatedly sent to Kämmerer via email, most recently on January 7:

“If you are really interested in a scientific analysis of what is being called the ‘corona pandemic’ – and I firmly assume that you are – then why not simply make your evidence for the virus public in detail?”

However, there has been no response to this question yet. When this email was sent, all relevant parties, i.e. Samuel Eckert, Viviane Fischer, Next Level, Jens Böcken-feld from Grosse Freiheit TV and Marvin Haberland, were copied. These people involved also gave an unmistakable signal that, even though Kämmerer has not provided any proof of the virus, there is a willingness to ensure clarity in a factual manner, at least at the discourse level.

With another question, I refer to the topic of “control experiments”, which is of central importance when it comes to the question of whether something like a virus has been solidly proven. The purpose of such a control experiment is to ensure that you have actually found out what you think you have found out.

In other words, this ensures that, for example, it was actually a virus that caused the cells to die in a cell culture experiment – and not a toxic substance which was added to the cell culture in the course of the experimental process.

A correct control would therefore be totake a sample from a healthy person and then “replay” the exact experiment in which a virus was allegedly detected. If such a control experiment showed that the cells died in the Petri dish as in the original experiment, then logically no cell-toxic virus could have been detected in the original experiment.

Rather, something non-viral that was added to the cell culture during the experiment – antibiotics, for example – would have to be responsible for the death of the cells.

Also, chemical stress in the test tube can lead to the formation of new gene sequences that were previously undetectable – and which, mind you, are not viral, as shown in the 2017 study by Edit I. Buzás et al. “Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA”, published in the Nature publication Scientific Reports.

Also noteworthy in this context are the statements made by Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock in her Nobel Prize speech on December 8, 1983, entitled “The Significance of Responses of the Genome to Challenge”.

In it she reports that the genetic material of living organisms can constantly change as a result of being hit by “shocks”. These shocks can be toxins, but also substances that cause stress in the test tube. This in turn can lead to the formation of new gene sequences that were previously undetectable, both in vivo and in vitro, i.e. both in the organism and in the test tube.

With this in mind, I also sent the following question to PCR expert Kämmerer:

“Do you know of a study that shows that it can be ruled out that the RNA that the PCR tests ‘pick up’ belongs to the non-viral gene sequences that have arisen as a result of test tube ‘shocks’ induced by antibiotics or other substances, to use McClintock’s term – and thus also refutes the study by Buzás et al. mentioned above?”

This question is also awaiting an answer.

The problem is: There are around 300,000 Covid-19 studies – but not one of them has a corresponding control test. “Even the Pasteur Institute did not carry out any control tests“, as the Hamburg engineer Marvin Haberland found out and said in an interview with Transition News and Transition TV.

However, the microbiologist Stefan Lanka carried out such a control experiment and published the results at the beginning of 2021.

About these control experiments by Lanka Ulrike Kämmerer asked some questions in the 94th meeting of the Corona Committee, broadcast on March 4, 2022. However, Kämmerer is criticized for only referring to a single screen shot and not to the complete original publication.

This raised dozens of questions. Among them: Which cell culture medium was used? Why was yeast RNA used in a control group? Which antibiotics were used? But these are questions that need not have arisen, as they are answered in detail in the full publication.

Against this background, Lanka supporters sent the following three questions to Kämmerer by email on March 18, 2022:

‘“Why didn’t you ask us or Dr. Stefan Lanka, the publisher or similar, for the original publication before your appearance [in the Corona Committee]? We would have made it available to you immediately.
Why do you claim that the work by Fan Wu et al. proves a virus, even though the Chinese subsequently confirmed that they were not isolating a virus at that time and that this work does not contain a single control experiment and has many other weaknesses?
Why doesn’t it bother you that all the virologists we asked confirmed that they did not carry out any control experiments in order to dispel the existing doubts?”

Kämmerer has not yet answered these questions either. And not only that, she also claimed that she did not have or would not have any details on Lanka’s control experiments.

But how can that be? That was another question from me and Transition News to Kämmerer. After all, the Lanka supporters had already answered her questions in an article on March 17 and 18, 2022 and also published them in a Telegram post – and on March 18 they had sent her several additional emails with the corresponding answers to the questions she had asked and the details of the control attempts.

Kämmerer has still not commented on this question either.

As a reason for her persistent failure to answer any of my or our questions, Kämmerer gave the following in an email on January 2nd:

“Of course you have the right to ask questions yourself, but I have no obligation to answer them, so let’s leave it at that.”

Kämmerer also stated that I:

“officially have nothing to do with the award, unless you bring Mr. Eckert in person, in which case he will be happy to answer your questions”.

I then wrote her the following back:

“Dear Ms. Kämmerer! Thank you for your reply, but I am quite puzzled by parts of it. According to my understanding of honest public communication, you should be willing to answer my questions, even though, as you write, I ‘officially have nothing to do with the award’. After all, you are going public with the issue on your own initiative and commenting on it extensively, for example in a format such as the Corona Committee.
And anyone who does something like that can only do so honestly if they are also willing to engage in a public discussion about it – and thus also answer questions from journalists or scientists who are interested in a purely factual clarification of the topic.”

Incidentally, I added:

“As you can imagine, I am in communication with Samuel Eckert. And I bring him here, as you ‘requested’, officially, ‘personally’ (he is also copied).”

Kämmerer then received the aforementioned ten questions from Samuel Eckert and myself by email. But despite two requests, there has been no response from the almost 60-year-old to date.

Meanwhile, Viviane Fischer closed the Corona Committee meeting at the end of December 2023 with the following words:

“It would be nice if [the dispute and thus the award] could be brought to an end. I think it would be great if people [like Lanka and Eckert] can help us make progress with this issue again, but with hard facts.”

At the aforementioned Corona Committee meeting on May 12, 2023, Fischer also explicitly suggested that Kämmerer’s document proving the existence of the virus, whose “cover sheet” her lawyer Schmitz held up to the camera during this session, should be published. She said: