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 proof 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 proof 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

Did you enjoy this article? Then please consider to support my blog with a donation.

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

  1. Wait so there are actually people who are arguing that measles doesn’t exist? Wow. I must have made up what I had when I was a kid then.

    1. Did you try to READ the story? He didn’t say the disease doesn’t exist. He just denied that the disease is caused by a virus.

  2. “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 the existence 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 with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (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 good science 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.”

    So what you have to say about that?

    1. Why don’t you quote the original court document. Podbielski is quite clear on this matter:

      Auf Nachfrage des Gerichts:
      Ich kann jetzt nicht sagen, ob es einen Artikel gibt, der umfassend die gleichen Dinge darstellt
      wie die erwähnten Originalartikel, ohne deren methodische Schwächen aufzuweisen, also beispielsweise
      mit den in der Tat zu vermissenden Negativkontrollen. Wobei ich in diesem Zusammenhang
      erneut darauf hinweise, dass bestimmte Teile der Versuchsanordnung in den Originalartikeln
      von ’54 und ’58 eine gewisse Kontrollfunktion durchaus haben.

      Entscheidend erscheint mir Folgendes: Derartige wissenschaftliche Artikel werden ja benutzt
      für Folgearbeiten auch anderer Wissenschaftler. Es hat sich hier ein im Ergebnis guter Reinigungsmechanismus in der Fachliteratur etabliert, der gerade auch in jüngster Zeit zum Teil Artikel
      aus höchstrangigen Fachzeitschriften betroffen hat. Wenn sich die im Artikel dargestellten Abläufe
      in Folgeversuchen schlechterdings nicht nachvollziehen !assen, so kommt das in Artikeln
      anderer Forscher typischerweise zutage. Jedenfalls bei einem derart intensiv in der Forschung
      behandelten Thema wie den Mäsern ware das sicher zu erwarten gewesen.

      You probably quoted from some unreliable website, which likes Lanka’s version of the matter better than an objective report.

      1. This what you quote was in 2015 so why dont show judgment from supreme court this year? And you speak about objective report, right.

        1. Of course this is from 2015, because that is when Podbielski wrote his Gutachten and gave this additional commentary in response to questions from the court. If you are talking about a different document, then provide a link to it.

        2. You either don’t understand German very well or you are trolling. What paragraph in that text is the first paragraph of page 7? Remember the “(page 7/ first paragraph)” which is in the text you quoted in your first reaction?

          I’ll spare you the trouble of answering this. Your link points to the verdict of the appeals court (not the supreme court), which did not discuss the details of the articles Bardens sent in, nor the Gutachten of Podbielski, nor his answers to additional questions from the defence (Lanka). This is explained in paragraphs 103 and following, in which the court explains that this issue is not longer debatable. This higher court ruled that the first court acted according to the law in accepting the Gutachten which states that the six articles together are sufficient proof for the existence of the Measles virus.

      2. So I am wondering if thge measels exist for such long time, had profound effect in Amerika 400 years ago. Than how come there is no easy proof the virus exist. You would expect that the pharma has lots of evidence and the research is done poorly. My simplicity says that is smelly.
        What is you thought Pepijn?

        Thanks for your contribution and effort in this

        1. Why do you think it would be easy to prove that a virus exists? There are lots of things we’ve known via indirect observations but were difficult to see directly because of the level of technology available.

    2. About what rules the RKI is bound to and what their legal status are, I’m not that interested.

      1. Of course you are not interested because if you are, you would’ve known that these ‘supposed’ isolations and proof of viruses will not stand the Koch’s postulates. You lost. Move on.

        Koch’s postulates are as follows: The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.

        1. Of course, the Robert Koch Institute is well aware that the postulates which were formulated by Robert Koch have their limitations. No wonder, as they were written in the 19th century and even Koch knew that it was a simplification. You can read that in Wikipedia for instance. Besides this has very little to do with the specific demands Lanka set in his bet on the evidence he would accept.

    3. The cause and effects of vaccines on viruses is empirical. The weight of evidence is massive. The issue regarding certain type of human testing only exist because of ethical reasons. This whole affair stinks the same way that the rowbothem and wallace bet did in the 1870s regarding the earth being flat.

      1. Actually, this is very similar to the Rowbotham earth-curvature challenge, but not in the way you suggest. In both cases, the men offering the prize set out very precise requirements to win the prize money. (Rowbotham required that his observation of a flag 6 miles away seen through a telescope less than a foot above water at Bedford canal be refuted, and Lanka required that proof of measles virus ISOLATION be presented.) In both cases, the challengers who claimed victory did not meet the original challenge, but presented different evidence. The guy who challenged Rowbotham never met the original criteria, but instead created a new experimental “proof” using a telescope mounted on a bridge. In the Lanka case, the evidence never met the outlined criteria either; They claimant presented strong evidence to claim the prize using a preponderance of other evidence, but the evidence was ruled to be “out of bounds.” Both claimants remain unpaid.

  3. He doesnt have to be right about vaccins. Whats important is for people to stay vigilant. It keeps the producers awake and they will make sure they are made as healthy as possible. Don’t you agree?

  4. Pepijn you are a Moron, the Pharma Industry would like to pay any costs for a proper test, when there would be any chance for a positiv test result!

    1. “Moron”? Such a nice starter for a discussion. Further insults in your comments will not be tolerated.

      What has the pharmaceutical industry to gain from winning such a pathetic bet? Meeting Lanka’s demands will possibly only get them his 100000 euro, but doing the experiments in a way that satisfies his demands will probably cost far more and they’ll would probably have to spend vast amounts for lawyers to force Lanka to pay out in the end.

    2. This comment section is hurting my brain. So all of you people claiming measles dosnt exist realise how easy it is to diagnose measles with antibody tests, PCR and sequencing in line with clinical presentation? Right?

      Virus isolation and EM are outdated, labour intensive and generally a waste of time with current testing techniques and if you don’t believe that you frankly have no idea what you are talking about.

      These techniques weren’t developed for the lols and please, if you think HIV is getting “shredded” and measles doesn’t exist I invite you to go to areas of high incidence, expose yourself and don’t take any protective measures and see how you go.

      Pepjin. Don’t bother arguing with these people they are either trolls or will not listen to reason. There is more than enough literature and clinical cases demonstrating the existence of such viruses that there is no point arguing.

      Also note that “big Parma” makes nothing off measles in Australia, yet measles cases are still diagnosed here from unvaccinated and travellers. Go figure.

      1. What a load of crap you talk. Australia is very good at vaccinating children. If there is a concerned of where any measles epidermic is coming from I would be looking at Those that are vaccinated. But not to put to finer point, why would you worry if your vaccinated. Sent you protected. It is that are not vaccinated that don’t need to worry we have a good functioning Immune system

        1. If you look into how outbreaks occur in countries which have high rates of vaccination (which should guarantee herd immunity), you’ll find that those started most of the times by unvaccinated people who travelled abroad (to countries with lower rates of vaccinations) and got infected and spread the disease in their community when returning home. As far as I know, there is only one case known in which someone who was fully vaccinated against measles, got infected (without getting ill) and spread the virus to others.
          Measles is dangerous for people who chose not to be vaccinated, but also for people for whom vaccination didn’t work properly (unfortunately the vaccine is not working in 100% of the cases), for those who are not able to get vaccinated because of medical reasons, and for those who are not yet vaccinated, like newborns. All those people depend on herd immunity for not getting infected.

        2. I will not discuss whether measles exists or not. I just want to refer to the facts. And facts are quite (hmm.. maybe not only ‘quite’ but much more then ‘quite’?) different…

          @Pepijn, This was the first DOCUMENTED case, not first at all. This make a difference as when you look closer there are documented cases of atypical/asymptomatic version of measles in vaccinated people. It is milder, but.. doesn’t mean it cannot be spread then. ‘Milder’ can also means ‘invisible’ (when the rash doesn’t exist) or ‘treated as other disease’ – like allergy or rubella. Very similar cases we have already had in b. pertussis cases. Vaccinated people had/have atypical whooping cought without specific cought that can in unequivocal way be recognize as a WC. And we know now that these people transmit bacteria without any control to other suscetible people – vaccinated or not.

          Waning immunity in fully vaccinated community actually is the fact. We know it based on WC case. For measles compulsory vaccination started later (comparing with WC) and WHO set the goal for measles eradication later due to new MMR vaccine introduction (let say within last 14-15 years) so we still need some time to see the phenomenon of cascade waning immunity, because there are still medium aged living people being immuned naturally after disease that the circulation is partially blocked by their immunity system. Unfortunatelly the younger generations haven’t such strong immunity as their parents/grandparents.
          As the extension of what I wrote above – there can occur in the (near?) future situation when the virus can modify. This situation we already have also for WC. It is the natural mechanism of survival, very well known in the antibiotics crisis. For the first time observed in vaccination for WC and still haven’t been understood. Measles can be next due to trials of virus elimination.
          First of all – our wish isn’t the fact. And our expectations can finish as a trash when we will not respect the will of living of all organisms.

          There is another aspect of waning immunity, that you are probably not aware of – vaccinated mothers don’t give their newborns as many antibodies and nonvaccinated. Thus the postnatal immunity is weaker and .. shorter. I can imagine that in some cases newborn can have no antibodies from vaccinated mothers – especially for third generation of vaccination in the familly. Unfortunatelly.. we cannot vaccinate earlier with live attenuated vaccine, because to produce the optimal level of antibodies, immune system needs to be fully developed. So – mass vaccination created situation that currently the previously quite mild disease became extremely dangerous for neborns and infants.. And you cannot blame only unvaccinated . Why? Because when child is vaccinated it can have measles either. Like with rotavirus vaccine – they can spread disease to other. Vaccinated and unvaccinated. And especially – these most vulnarable children.

          Please, look at the whole situation, not only the local aspects.

        3. waning immunity is an interesting subject, but quite off-topic on this post. Might be something for a future post.

  5. I suppose if we pointed out that cigarette companies would once hire the best advertising agencies to market smoking in the best light they could (which turned out to be a campaign of doctors/actors telling the public that smoking is of no concern) then that would be met with “oh not that boring bit of truth”. Interesting that this is the best you could come back with “boring”. I think the story of Galileo Galilei and others like him who suffered at the hands of those who supposedly knew better, are far from boring. Obviously you know better …or do you know anything at all beyond your own personal opinion.

    1. Maybe you missed that I gave a link tot a blog post by ‘Orac’ in my reply, which discusses the ‘Galileo Gambit’ and you can consider that link as substantiation for my use of ‘boring’. Just one good quote from that post (is actually by Michael Shermer):

      For every Galileo shown the instruments of torture for advocating scientific truth, there are a thousand (or ten thousand) unknowns whose ‘truths’ never pass scientific muster with other scientists. The scientific community cannot be expected to test every fanstastic claim that comes along, especially when so many are logically inconsistent.

  6. As a molecular biologist working more than 25 years on detection and identification of infectious diseases we have certain protocols to defienetly prove the virus with having its DNA or RNA sequense and genes. We do not need to observe the virus to say OK this is the virus? When we have the gene sequense in the patients sample or from culture or … 100% similar to the virus so it is? Its very strange to say there is no meseales virus? Please go to the gene bank and see the genome sequense of the virus? And go to the virology text books and read about it and so mant research papers publised abut the structure, replication , molecular biology of the virus isolated from meseales patients ??? Its amazing ???

    1. Perhaps he supports Bechamp and Claude Bernard’s theories. By the way what is a virus? Guytons say they aren’t alive. Others say they are strands of DNA material.

      1. Viruses do not have all the characteristics of life, which makes this case somewhat challenging. For example, they do not carry out their functions and reproduce without a living host, i.e. live cells. So you can’t watch them “feed” and reproduce independently in a test tube. So to make vaccines, they must be grown in cells. And the vaccines may have nucleic acids and random cell parts that Lanka says “prove” his point. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Other non-living agents cause disease symptoms too, like nitrate and radium poisoning.

  7. 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. Then you lied or you do not understand German. Tatsache ist, dass in KEINER der 6 Arbeiten der Nachweis eines Masernvirus geführt wurde.
        You should actually read the court’s findings rather than re-interprets its findings to suit what you believe because you are religiously wedded to the idea that harmful viruses exist whereas in fact they haven’t, as demonstrated quite clearly in this case – I believe what you propagate is called ‘Fake News’ nowadays.

        1. The higher court ruled that the lower court was right in accepting the expert opinion of Podbielsky who stated that the six articles together answer the questions asked by Lanka. Period. I’ve have given the exact quote in another comment.

    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.

  8. 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 * Your comment might stay in the moderation queue for some time, especially if it is your first comment on this site. Usually all comments will be published, even if they express extreme disagreement with my writing, but I suggest that you find another place to leave rude and offensive comments. Also completely anonymous and non-English comments are not likely to pass moderation. Also read the Privacy Policy.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.