Skip to main content

Disappointing outcome of Bardens vs. Lanka: measles proven to exist, but anti-vaxxer Lanka keeps his money


It seems that after three years of struggle in court, the Ravensburger Measles process has finally reached its endpoint. Extremist anti-vaxxer Stefan Lanka, who denies the existence of harmful viruses, had set out a reward of 100,000 euros for scientific prove that there is such a thing as a virus that causes measles. The young doctor David Bardens provided Lanka with six articles that show this, but Lanka denied that this evidence met the criteria of his challenge.

Bardens took Lanka to court to have him pay and at first this seemed to be succesful. The court appointed an expert to judge the evidence and this person, professor Andreas Podbielski, was quite clear that the the articles Bardens had sent in should be considered sufficient to meet the material criteria of Lanka’s bet and so the court ordered him to pay. Lanka appealed this decision and won on formal grounds. The higher court ruled that Lanka was free to judge whether any evidence sent in for his bet, was good enough in his opinion.

Now Bardens tried to get this ruling revised, but unfortunately (in December 2016) the court saw no reason for that . Case closed it seems. According to DAZ Online (Bundesgerichtshof hält sich aus Masernstreit heraus ) Lanka is now telling his followers that this outcome means that there is no prove of the existence of measles and that it is now established that there is no legal ground for the vaccination programmes worldwide. Podbielsky has harshly criticized this interpretation of the court rulings and stated that Lanka has only won because of semantic and legal subtleties. None of the six articles alone are enough to prove that measles exist, but together they prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

See also:

The Proof in Bardens vs. Lanka – Measles in Court

26 thoughts on “Disappointing outcome of Bardens vs. Lanka: measles proven to exist, but anti-vaxxer Lanka keeps his money

  1. If all is so easy and so clear … WHY no other else arrange a document with the requirements and win the price ?
    Come on boys !!!

    1. Mr. Lanka, do you acknowledge that the court decision in this matter had nothing to do with scientific evaluation of the evidence Bardens had brought in or your position on the existence of the measles virus? And if you don’t agree to this view, can you quote from the court’s documents the exact sentences which state that measles has not been proven to exist according to the court?

        1. When you read the previous article on this matter, linked at the bottom of this post, you would have found the articles Bardens had provided to Lanka, which according to Podbielski meet the conditions of the bet of Lanka concerning the scientific claims. And ‘measles’ used in vaccines is an attenuated strain, not the same is wild variations. You could have looked that up yourself easily.
          So get your facts straight before you start swearing at me.

  2. Measles virus was NOT proven to exist, and this was not because of semantics. These photos are not the isolated measles virus, as implied. They are typical cells with typical endogenous particles in them.

    1. The courts accepted the testimony of Podbielsky that the articles given by Bardens were good enough to prove the existence op the measles virus. Podbielsky also stated that there are numerous other articles which Bardens could have used. The problem for Bardens is that the courts decided that this proof does not necessarily fulfill the criteria Lanka had stated in his bet (i.e. all parts of the proof in one article). This of course has nothing to do with the science of the measles virus, only with the peculiar way Lanka looks at ‘proof’.

      1. Tis the problem with modern virology, when paired with modern medicine. Scientists don’t have to provide proper, and reproducible viral isolations, due to viruses being a lucrative business. Most of these modern viruses don’t hold up under scientific scrutiny. HIV has been getting shredded, and exposed as a fraud, in court cases over the last few years. The vast voluminous amount of data allegedly supporting it’s existence, quickly dissipates into thin air, when experts are questioned under oath. You find out a lot of eye opening facts when you read the court transcripts.

        1. Scientific facts and scientific consensus are not established in court rooms. Judicial evidence is not the same is scientific evidence, it’s serves a different purpose. I don’t know which court cases you mean, I’m not going to search for the links myself, you could drop them here.
          There is no serious scientific doubt on the existence on hiv. Of course some research on viruses might be not very good, but that’s to be expected considering the vast amount of research which is being done in this area.

        1. No, you’re wrong. Just read the text you link to more carefully and don’t mix up what the defendant stated and what the court stated. See paragraph 104:

          Die Beweiswürdigung des Landgerichts dahingehend, dass aufgrund des eingeholten Sachverständigengutachtens bewiesen sei, dass die vom Kläger vorgelegten Publikationen in ihrer Gesamtheit den Nachweis für die Existenz und die Erregereigenschaft des Masernvirus belegten und auch die Bestimmung des Durchmessers in der vom Beklagten verlangten Form gelungen sei, ist im Ergebnis nicht zu beanstanden.

          This shows that the courts decided that the lower court was right in accepting the expert opinion from Podbielsky.

          In the remaining paragraphs you can read how Lanka tried to convince the ‘Gutachter’ (Podbielski) by asking question first in writing and later in the court session (by his attorney) but failed to get him on his side. So from a judicial point of view the expert opinion by Podbielsbi still stands: the six articles Bardens handed in were together good enough to prove what Lanka asked for. It’s just that it wasn’t in one article and some other formal issues, which led the higher courts to rule in Lanka’s favour.

        2. The criteria for paying E100.000,- are stated in paragraph 77-78-79-80-81 and 82. Especially the last sentence of paragraph 82 is important for this case [… Es liegt auf der Hand, dass vom Beklagten, erkennbar auch für Dritte, nicht gewünscht sein kann, dass etwa 50, 100 oder 500 verschiedene Werke vorgelegt werden, aus denen dann einzelne Textpassagen oder Abschnitte wie ein Puzzle zusammengesetzt werden, um sodann über die Aussage im Gesamtkontext zu streiten].
          Lanka wanted the proof and size of the measles virus in one article. If that was the case Lanka would pay E100.000,-
          Therefore, if Bardens (or some other scientist) would have cultured measles viruses, isolated them, photographed them and publish the results s/he would have earned E100.000,-. This would be a superb opportunity for Bardens because he was still a student at that time. Bardens had access to a lab, surely he would get support from his professors and his name would always be known throughout the scientific community. Also it seems unlikely that such a research would cost more than E100.000,-. You get a lot of viruses in a couple of petri dishes and he could have used the electron microscope from the university.
          Bardens lost the case because he did not met the criteria as stated by Lanka and was not able to produce research to comply with the stated criteria.
          Therefore Pepijn, the E100.000,- are still on the table. Maybe an opportunity for you. 🙂

        3. More of the same: the courts acknowledge that Lanka had a point in asking for proof in a single publication as an unclear process would occur to pick out the accumulated evidence from 50 or more publications. I would say that six articles which each deal with very well defined parts of Lanka’s bet is quite different than just point to a load of 50 or more papers, but that’s something for the judge to decide. Anyway this is semantics. Lanka got away with this argument which does not have anything to do with the question whether the measles virus exists or not, or what the diameter of the virus is.

          Of course we can now see in hindsight that the way Bardens took on this bet was not thought through very well, maybe he could have guessed that Lanka would find a way to wiggle his way out of paying.

        4. If the science about the measles virus is settled according to you, then why is this not packed into one article which proves this from start to finish? Why are there then still people like Lanka around? More importantly: if you are convinced of the science why don’t you entertain such research for yourself? Just set up a research proposal based on the published articles and condense this into one valid research path. Contact Lanka if he would find your proposal valid for earning the E100.000,- and get his response signed so that you have a legal contract. Then get a quote from the various universities and/or labs how much they would charge to research your proposal. If the costs are less then E100.000,- you would earn money. You would always earn eternal fame.
          If it is so simple to proof the measles virus then why has nobody claimed the prize?

        5. Real scientists have no problem understanding the evidence if that’s spread over several documents. I can only guess that Lanka asked for one single publication, because he knew that there is not a such a publication that contains all what he demands proof for in one. Of course someone could take the effort to prepare an article based on all the available evidence, but that would probably turn out hard to get published (or even get funded) because it would not contain anything new from a scientific viewpoint.

        6. Real scientists or not. Fact is that there is no single article published that prooves, for once and for all, the existence and diameter of the measles virus in one elegant go (Occam’s razor). Even though one could make E100.000,-, gain fame and could put a stop to the nonsense of Lanka and his ilk. All that Lanka asks is one, just one, paper for which he is willing to pay. 
          And yes, real scientists love money and fame too. 
          So please, can a real scientist produce the paper Lanka needs?

      2. Perhaps is time what you call “scientific consensus” start to be analized in deep, seriously.
        We are accustomed to become a lie truth, only because it is repeated by more and more people, and this is nothing but a brainwashing. It’s like faith in religions …. Strikes me as you are strict with other alternative medicines, but asking that “supposed” truths of medicine have to be accepted as an act of faith.
        Let’s be serious… just as we want others to be.

        1. Well, if you think the six articles don’t prove that the measles vaccine virus exists, maybe you can explain what’s wrong with those articles or explain to us why they fail to prove that together, and thus show why Podbielski’s expert judgement was wrong.

        2. Sorry but Mr. Lanka asked for a virus isolation, photograph it, measure its size, etc. and demonstrate how the virus is the cause of the disease.

          I don’t said nothing about vaccine does not exists.

        3. Stuttgart Supreme Court are not virologist, not computer experts, not meteorology experts, etc… but I presume in them enough intelligence to decide whether the conditions required to win the prize have been fulfilled. If they can not judge any subject from which they are not experts, it is better to dissolve the judicial system. Time will confirm if Dr. Lanka is right or not. For now, 2 times courts have given reason to him.

          There is no need to repeat what Mr. Lanka has already explained. Anyone who wants to see it, has access to it, and can judge for itself. Of course everyone can decide whether agrees or not.

          What can not be is, that any desident opinion, is taken as an attack to the stablishment of medicine, and reacts like the holy inquisition, condemning to hell anyone who dares to think differently. Medicina react as the church when Galileo Galilei said “but … it moves”.

          Medicine and other sciences must be open to dissenting opinions, and investigate honestly, how good these new proposals can be. There are doctors outside the channel, who are healing people. We must listen and move to prove honestly if are there any truth or not.

          Nowadays medicine has become very weird, at least in my country, Spain. When a patient goes to a doctor’s office, having a cold, a headache, etc… doctor looks the pressure of the blood, gasps his breath, looks at his eyes, and says … it must be a virus. Take these pills and if you do not get better next week, come and see me again. That is all. And this is not an exception, this is the rule. Doctor never never ask you about important facts: What you eat ? How you sleep ? How is your emotional state ? All is going well at home ? How is the air you breathe ? Are your working on toxic conditions in some way ? etc…

          It is important that doctors and researchers regain common sense, think for themselves, and stop dancing with the rythm of the pharmaceutical corporations.

        4. For now, 2 times courts have given reason to him.

          Yep, but not because of his ideas on virolgy, only because he was smart enought to formulate his bet in such a way that he would always be able to avoid paying out.

          What can not be is, that any desident opinion, is taken as an attack to the stablishment of medicine, and reacts like the holy inquisition, condemning to hell anyone who dares to think differently. Medicina react as the church when Galileo Galilei said “but … it moves”.

          Oh come on, you don’t have better arguments than this boring ‘Galileo Gambit’?

          And for the rest of you comment: of course there are a lot of lazy doctors who prescribe too many pills too easily, but that doesn’t mean medicine as a science is equally wrong as the fantasies of alternative medicine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *