MEASLES VIRUS PUT TO THE TEST
Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court…
Caroline Markolin, Ph.D.

Dr. Lanka meets the press

Since the early 1990s, German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka has been at the forefront of challenging themedical theory stating that viruses are the cause of infectious diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, theflu, polio, herpes, or measles. Caroline Markolin has presented Dr. Lanka’s activities in her lecture
video “Virus Mania” in great details (watch Part 2 of the recordings on this website – starting at 08:08).
Based on his studies in virology, Dr. Lanka discovered that viruses are vital components of simple
life-forms that do not exist in complex organisms such as humans, animals, or plants. His researchshows that the viruses believed to cause “viral infections” are in reality ordinary cell particles thathave been misinterpreted as constituents of the viruses in question. Dr. Lanka also determined thatviruses don’t have a destructive effect on the host, as commonly believed. These findings are in fullaccordance with the discoveries of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer who demonstrated already in the 1980s
that contrary to the standard theory, microbes do not harm the organism but play instead a supportiverole during the healing process of diseases (see Fourth Biological Law of the New Medicine).
The “measles virus trial” between Dr. Stefan Lanka and German medical doctor David Bardens has
by now received international attention (see the 2015 reports in CTV News Canada and BBC News).
The court case has not only heated up the ongoing “virus debate”. It also fuelled the discussion about
the justification of childhood vaccination and of vaccination in general.
Here is a brief overview of the court proceedings:
On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000
to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows:“The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles
virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of themeasles virus is determined.”
In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on thesubject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.
The six publications are:
1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patientswith measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun; 86(2): 277-286.

1

2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol
Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75-85
3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top
Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35-50.
4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb;
3(2): 187-97.
5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA andthe structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep; 65 (Pt 9):153542.
6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles
Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107-14.
Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequateevidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.
On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of theadvertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.
On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling,
judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence ofthe measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement.
Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On December 1, 2016, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH)
confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.
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 ofevidence (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 theexistence 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 withinternationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirectevidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a“methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on thesubject (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 goodscience 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 ofvaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of
their legal basis.”
Source: www.LearningGNM.com

2