A chilling court case in Austria sounds like it could have come right out of a dystopian novel. An insane, vindictive prosecutor and a compliant judge convicted a 54-year-old Austrian woman with “grossly negligent homicide” for “fatally infecting her neighbor with COVID-19.” The Austrian prosecutors argued that the woman came in contact with her neighbor in a stairwell and shared viral DNA, before the neighbor got sick with COVID-19 and died of pneumonia.

This outrageous case sets a dangerous legal precedent, enshrining the germ theory as definitive legal doctrine, and making everyday activities subject to police state surveillance and prosecution. With this insane case, anyone with a damaged immune system can prosecute anyone they want, without serious evidence, for their own sicknesses and chronic diseases.

Innocent woman gets harassed and prosecuted for coming into contact with a neighbor who eventually got sick and died

The defendant in this case was found guilty of transmitting COVID-19 to her neighbor after they crossed paths in a stairwell. The prosecutor alleges that the defendant knew she had COVID-19, but left her home anyway. Trying her best to defend against the insane allegations, the woman said she had a case of bronchitis at the time. However, the prosecutors disagreed with her diagnosis and claimed she carried a specific virus (COVID-19) that ultimately killed her neighbor through some brief contact.

When the neighbor became sick the following week, she and her family immediately blamed the 54-year-old woman for transmitting a COVID-19 virus. Sadly, this neighbor did not get the proper treatment and could not recover from her illness. She later died from pneumonia. The family, although grieving, should not have the right to pin the death on some innocent woman. This case shatters the legal principle called presumption of innocence, while appeasing germ theory insanity and ignoring the role of the individual's immune system in recovering from infectious disease.

As the defendant was being prosecuted for living her life and breathing freely, the court ordered her to submit viral DNA samples. The deceased neighbor was also probed for viral DNA. The "virological report" suggested that the deceased neighbor and the defendant shared similar viral DNA. However, this bio-surveillance proves absolutely nothing, because anyone can share bits and pieces of viral DNA at any given time. Pathogens are ubiquitous. The real causes of illness and immune failure were ignored in this case.

Court ignores the science of the individual immune system, enshrining germ theory as definitive legal doctrine

There’s also no way of proving that this viral DNA was directly shared (transmitted) from the woman to the neighbor. Even if there was an Orwellian way of proving that the defendant transmitted viral DNA to her neighbor, how can she be held responsible for something that is completely out of her control? This is an inevitable occurrence -- randomly crossing paths with people, breathing freely and making contact with her immediate surroundings! How can she be held responsible for the poor state of health, the person's immune function, and the lack of proper treatment that the neighbor received?

Does the defendant control the space and the air between she and her neighbors? Can she control the viruses and bacteria in the air she breathes or how they interact with her neighbors? Can the defendant control the state of everyone's immune systems? These things are kind of just part of living in a society or community.

The ever-present nature of COVID-19, and the fraudulent use of PCR testing during the relevant time frame, makes it nearly impossible to pinpoint a single source of infection. Moreover, viral and bacterial DNA is a natural part of the human microbiome. It’s the various functions of the immune system that should matter most when determining the causes of disease. The terrain theory of disease was completely left out of the equation in this insane conviction.

When the judge announced the woman’s sentencing, he acknowledged the unlikelihood of this being an isolated incident, raising questions about the fairness of singling out this particular woman, especially for something that’s untraceable, incalculable. However, the innocent woman was sentenced to four months of suspended imprisonment and issued an 800-euro fine ($886.75) for “grossly negligent homicide.”

While the judge issued a sentence, the final verdict has not been determined. The final outcome of this case will be closely watched around the world, with potentially chilling ramifications for public health policy and individual freedoms that extend far beyond Austria's borders. If individuals can be held criminally liable for spreading a common illness, particularly with such loose evidentiary standards, it opens the door for a dystopian future where everyday activities carry the risk of criminal prosecution.

Sources include:

100PercentFedUp.com

Newsweek.com

JuniperPublishers.com