Measles virus? There is no proof of a measles virus says court!


As I haven’t found any English language news about the Stefan Lanka legal case, I was wondering whether you had heard about the decision of a German Court, that there was no scientific publication which proves the existence of the measles virus.

To back up: Stefan Lanka is the biologist/virologist who detected the first virus and was one of the early critics of the AIDS-HIV dogma. In 2011, he offered a 100,000 Euro reward for anyone who presents a scientific publication that proves the existence of the measles virus and determines its diameter. MD David Bardon presented 6 publications, claimed the reward and sued Lanka for refusing to pay, A first ruling had demanded that Lanka must pay. On 16. February, 2016, the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart decided on appeal, that no proof of the existence of a measles virus had been presented.

Here is a translation of an article by Hans Tolzin of Impfreport (Vaccination report), a leading website on independent vaccination education:

“Biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka does not have to pay a 100,000 Euro reward to the Saxony based doctor David Bardens after all. Bardens had tried to prove the existence of the measles virus by submitting 6 publications. Lanka had offered the reward to anyone, who presented a publication, in which the virus was proven to exist and in which the diameter of the virus was determined. the District court of Stuttgart rules in an appeal of Feb, 16th, 2016 that the demanded proof was not presented. Also the expert who was commissioned by the court, a University professor from Rostock, explicitly confirmed in the first ruling of the County Court of Ravensburg, that none of the 6 presented publications provided any proof of existence of the virus. Further, in explanation of the decision, the court stated, that the person offering the reward also decides the conditions the bid must fulfill.”

“The District Court thus avoided further trouble on point. Meanwhile, several renowned university scientists support Lanka stating that science has to the present day omitted to explicitly exclude, by means of so-called negative controls, that the claimed measles viruses were in fact cell debris from cell cultures and not measles viruses.”

“Understandably, the verdict was a great relief for Dr. Lanka. However, the original question, whether or not there is objective evidence of a measles virus, remains unanswered so no clarity was obtained. According to the head of the court, no further clarity could be obtained by judicial proceedings.”

“My position (Hans Tolzin) is this: after 130 years of virology, a basic discussion was born, that was overdue. Thanks is due to Dr Lanka , regardless of whether one believes in a measles virus or not, science can only benefit from this and so can our children, who are affected by the vaccination programs through which they claim they will eradicate the measles virus.”

The speaker of the court went so far as to warn journalists to be “very careful with their headlines“ for the verdict does not deny the existence of the virus (it doesn’t confirm it either). They insist it is only about the wording of a part of one publication, and not of all 6 that were presented by Bardens. The court omitted the statement from reviewers saying that not one of the publications prove the existence of the virus. The fact that 6 publications were presented, was then left open to interpretation that maybe all of the 6 publications combined could prove the case, but that was never stated.

Stefan Lanka hasn’t given a public statement in years, here is his website:

Here is Lanka’s original competition text:

The sum of 100’000 Euro will be paid on presentation of a scientific publication, in which the existence of the measles- virus is not only claimed, but actually proven, and in which the diameter of the virus is determined.“

“The conditions of the “Infectionsschutzgesetz“ (federal infection protection law) must be adhered to and therefore the publication must come from the Robert Koch Institute (German equivalent of the CDC).

Below is a second article by Hans Tolzin with more information

“the scientist ordered by the County Court of Ravensburg from the University of Rostock stated clearly, that none of the six presented publications on their own were capable of delivering full proof.“

so far so good.

I said earlier the reviewer commissioned by the court did leave it to the interpretation of the listener to imply that all 6 publications combined would prove the case of the measles virus, as I found out, he gave more than a vague implication. He actually said:

“only in overview could these (6) publications be “regarded“ as “evidence“.

However, he didn’t say: they are proof he even joked about what the definition of proof is. (see below)

One reporter from pointed out that apparently, this would mathematically mean 6 x 0 = 6.

The text of the competition does say “one Publication“…“that proves the measles virus“. As the judge said it is not up to the justice system to decide medical facts. This can only take place in the scientific community.

It seems to me that Lanka was forced to play along with these word games to win his case.

The court got out of admitting that the existence of the virus cannot be proven by one single publication by saying it wasn’t the subject of the trial to determine whether the virus exists or not.

They adamantly pointed out that Lanka was only acquitted because of a small formality in the interpretation of the competition, not because the virus is not proven. As I said before they don’t say the virus IS proven, either.

All in all, I see Lanka’s case as an important victory in terms of challenging the paradigm of vaccination practices.

The manner in which the courts and reporters argued, somewhat reminded me of Bill Clinton saying “It depends on what your definition of the word ‘is‘ is”.

Here is a short excerpt from the transcript of the original trial of March 12, 2015 which ruled against Lanka.

At 10:55, am: Lanka- defendant’s lawyer Schreiner addresses the scientist provided by the court, and asks to know the difference between evidence and proof.

The expert: “in biology there are only „Indizien“ (Indications/circumstantial evidence).“

Lawyer Schreiner: “could the initial measles-study from 1954 be replicated using improved methods available today?“

Expert: “No, there are no sponsors/funders and no publications willing to prove this again, as it’s already proven.“ (my comment: but he just said in biology there is only circumstantial evidence).

Scientist:“…if Ribosoma were found in measles virus, this would stir up attention.“

Judge: “then a need would arise for a change in paradigm, maybe a biology that works without viruses.”

Scientist: “I cannot imagine a world in which virus don’t exist. Publication nr. 5 is a scientific publication as well and it proves the measles virus.“

(laughter in the audience, someone shouts: “Guttenberg“.)

(publication nr. 5 was one of the 6 publications cited as proof by the prosecution. It is a Journal paper that summarizes other papers without making any new findings).

This goes on and on.

There is another interesting detail pointed out by Kopp online in the following article namely it seems the definition of measles virus has been changed since the announcement of the competition.

Unerwartete Wende im Masernvirus-Prozess?

(nexpected turn in the measles-virus trial?)


“In the first edition of ‘Vaccine’, the worlds most prestigious compendium of vaccination experts, 1988, it stated; the measles virus is spherical in shape and approximately 120 to 250 nanometers in size.

In the latest edition in 2013, the measles virus is not spherical any more, but can be ‘various shapes’.

In addition, according to the scientist commissioned by the court, Professor Podbielski from the University of Rostock, the virus can vary in size drastically between 50 and 1000 nanometers. “

and lastly, another article by Hans Tolzin points out the lack of controls in the presented publications.

Salamonian verdict in measles-virus trial

Hans U.P. Tolzin

“100,000 Euro is the sum that Biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka had promised to the person, who could present a scientific publication, in which the measles- virus is proven to exist and its diameter is determined. Dr. David Bardens, a young doctor from Saarland, finally accepted this pubic challenge and he was also granted the prize money by the County Court of Ravensburg in 2015.

this verdict was, to the surprise of many, overruled by the District Court of Stuttgart (OLG): The judge claims to be personally convinced of the existence of the virus but a critical condition of the bid, he decided, was not fulfilled.

With this the OLG court pulled on the emergency breaks because Lanka, in advance of the appeal trial, produced several expert assessments which pointed out, very clearly, the complete lack of control experiments in each one of the six publications presented as evidence. Such control experiments are claimed to be indispensable to a definitive outcome of an experiment.

For instance, according to Lanka, the described experiments do not rule out, that components of the cell cultures used as evidence could be erroneously claimed to be the sought virus.

According to a paper by professor Harald Walach from Frankfurt at the Oder, cited by Lanka, this is only possible using control experiments i.e. “systematic negative controls“ as Lanka called it.

A possible consequence of this statement of Walach among others could be a public dispute between scientists in court. This is something that the medical establishment wants to prevent at all costs. For, where would this lead to, if suddenly some of the most important theoretical basics of the established health- industry- one of the most profitable branches of industry- were publicly questioned.

The scientist ordered by the County Court of Ravensburg of the university of Rostock stated clearly, that none of the six presented publications alone provided irrefutable proof.

only an overview of all these publications could be “regarded“ as “evidence“. The verdict, given by the judges, is almost a Salamonian one.

The judge personally claimed to believe in the measles virus, but the proof was to be presented in one single publication, according to the competition stipulation, and not in six different publications.

Further, the head judge stated, that it is up to the person who offers the prize in a competition, to determine what conditions must be met.

The judge went on to say, that a court could not decide upon such scientific questions. This must happen within the scientific community.

The verdict apparently came as a great relief to the defendant.

Lanka has to pay neither the 100’000 Euro price nor the trial costs. The accuser Dr. Bardens has to pay the court costs.

kopp online

UPDATE: Since writing this note the MSM still not reporting this. Here’s a youtube video tho

UPDATE: In The Picturebook of Viruses the measles virus seems to have been deleted

UPDATE: Hot off the press, the measles article produced for this case and recently sent to the minister of hellth Germany in the Sars/Cov2 isolation case (ongoing) translated and edited by me and John Blaid

Published by northerntracey

Independent researcher since 1985 into cancer, vaccines and more recently germ theory and virology. Anti-vivisectionist and animal rights campaigner. Artist and illustrator. Veganic/permaculture food producer.

2 thoughts on “Measles virus? There is no proof of a measles virus says court!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: