Pilot Mandate Case

Pilot Mandate Case

Pilot Mandate Case

Re: the Legality for KLM (Dutch Royal Airlines) to mandate Corona injections against the will & consent of its employees


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: April 26, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Court: Amsterdam Civil Court
  • Case #: 9827224 KK EXPL 22-246
  • Plaintiff: VNV (Dutch Pilot’s Union)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: A. Stege
  • Defendant: KLM Airlines
  • Defendant’s Lawyers: J.M. van Slooten & T.O. Boot
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff (June 2, 2022)

*updated June 5, 2022



The core of the dispute is whether KLM is allowed to ask new pilots whether they have been vaccinated against corona and, if their answer is negative or non-existent, to exclude the new pilot from the recruitment procedure. [1]

On 10 March 2022, a candidate pilot sent an e-mail to VNV (the Pilot Union) with the title ‘vaccination requirement for future KLM pilots’. In this email, the candidate pilot informed VNV that KLM is asking about the vaccination status of the candidates, and that the candidate pilot feels forced to get the vaccinations to secure himself a job, which he is very upset about and causes him mental complaints. [1]

Subsequent correspondence between the parties shows, among other things, that KLM takes the position that the agreements made between VNV and KLM only apply to KLM employees and not to prospective employees, and that KLM (even before corona) set as an assumption requirement that an applicant for the position of pilot must be employable at all destinations of the KLM network. Furthermore, KLM did not comply with VNV’s request to confirm that it would refrain from inquiring into the corona vaccination status of candidate pilots. [1]

VNV is a trade union that promotes the interests of pilots employed by KLM. It also promotes the interests of members who are candidates for employment with, for instance, KLM. [1]

KLM currently employs more than 3,000 pilots. These can be divided into the categories of captain, first officer and second officer. There are also differences within these positions, namely which pilot may fly which type of aircraft (e.g. Boeing 737 or Airbus A330). Retraining to another aircraft type generally takes 3 months. [1]


During the corona pandemic KLM did not take on new pilots for some time. Now there are about 50 vacancies again and KLM has started to approach future pilots again. The Flight Crew Recruitment Coordinator with focus on Flight Operations, Ms. [name 9] , is responsible for the recruitment of cockpit personnel together with the Pilot Recruitment Manager. She stated the following about the “let’s connect” interviews with these potential pilots: [1]

These conversations were intended, after the influx of new pilots had stopped for a long time, to reconnect with the waiting list candidates and inform them of the fact that KLM expects the influx of new pilots again. Matters such as notice period, validity of licences/medical examinations, availability, what a candidate had done during the Corona period etc. were discussed. It was also discussed that one should be able to fly the entire network of KLM. In most of the interviews, the candidates immediately indicated themselves that they were fully vaccinated. In one interview, the question was actually asked whether a candidate was fully vaccinated. No candidate indicated that they were not fully vaccinated or unwilling to do so. There were no candidates who did not want to answer the question asked. [1]

In the event that a candidate had indicated that he or she was not fully vaccinated or prepared to be vaccinated, or did not want to answer the question whether the candidate had been fully vaccinated, this would have been a reason not to offer the candidate concerned an appointment as a pilot with KLM because the candidate would not be able to fly to every destination. This is in accordance with KLM’s always applicable policy. In such a case, we do not record anything about this and the candidate is simply removed from the waiting list. However, this has not been an issue. [1]

Nothing is recorded and/or registered regarding the vaccination status of candidates. [1]


During the corona pandemic the number of pilots with a travel restriction has so far increased by 30% to 800. A travel restriction means that a pilot is not allowed to fly to a destination or, for example, not at night. The (medical) travel restrictions are administered through the company doctor, KLM Health Services (KHS). [1]

Pilots who cannot fly to a destination where corona restrictions apply because they have not been vaccinated or do not (wish to) undergo testing may apply for such a travel restriction through KHS. KLM then only sees during the planning that there is a restriction and not whether the pilot has been vaccinated or not. [1]

KLM does not require its current pilots to have a corona vaccination. [1]

KLM Vademecum Vliegend Personeel (Guide to Flight Personnel) policy on vaccinations:

Crew are vaccinated against yellow fever, typhoid fever, diphtheria, tetanus & poliomyelitis (DTP) and hepatitis A at KLM Health Services free of charge. It is not allowed to fly within 24 hours after a vaccination. For cockpit crew there is the possibility to get the vaccinations on the day of the medical examination. There are countries that make certain vaccinations mandatory. Crew must carry the vaccination booklet with them every flight. [1]

A protocol to the collective bargaining agreement contains agreements on coronary restrictions:

f. KLM and the VNV will closely monitor developments regarding corona, corona testing and the corona vaccine. Both testing and vaccination will be on a voluntary basis only. If this is to the detriment of the total deployability of the KLM flying corps and/or the ability to carry out the KLM network, KLM and the VNV will consult each other. [1]

Message from the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

This is an international alliance of thousands of pilots, including the Dutch Aviation Collective supported by 17,000 doctors and medical scientists. [2]

The coalition warns that the side effects of corona vaccinations lead to dangerous situations. The Dutch Aviation Collective with 1400 members has also joined the action. Chairman and experienced pilot Mark Juch: [2]

“A number of colleagues have reported to us with vaccine damage, such as heart problems. When something like that happens in flight, it’s very dangerous. It’s just a matter of time before it goes wrong”. [2]

Coalition participants regularly receive reports of pilots suffering vaccine damage, including heart problems, blood clots, and neurological and hearing disorders, they say in their statement. Pilots working for KLM have also reported vaccine damage. According to the cry for help, affected pilots are not supported or taken seriously. They often lose their medical certification, which means they can no longer fly. The unions do not stand up for these pilots enough or simply do not know, as many incidents are deliberately kept quiet. [2]

Our Flight Safety Manual states that you may not use medical drugs or undergo medical procedures whose effects on your functioning during your work are uncertain,” says pilot Mark Juch. [2]

“That certainly applies to the corona vaccines, which have a temporary approval and are actually still in the experimental phase. The motto in aviation has always been: safety above all else. We have very strict medical examinations. If there is something wrong with you, you are grounded. But now all of a sudden that doesn’t apply anymore?” [2]



This case  challenged the notion whether or not a company may force a novel medical procedure onto its employees or risk termination.


Plaintiff’s Argument

VNV claimed by way of a judgment, as far as possible provisionally enforceable:

  • prohibit KLM with immediate effect from inquiring in any way into and/or using information from candidate pilots about their anti-corona vaccination status and/or from rejecting candidates because they have indicated that they are not vaccinated and/or do not wish to take the vaccination; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay a penalty of €100,000 for each violation of this prohibition; [1]
  • To order KLM to unconditionally reinstate the applications of those candidates they have rejected because they have not confirmed to be vaccinated against corona within 2 days after service of this judgment and to inform them within that term, and to disregard the vaccination status completely in the further application process; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay a penalty of €100,000 for each violation of this order; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay the costs of the proceedings. [1]


Defendant’s Argument

  • KLM argues that it is entitled to ask whether pilots can be deployed to all destinations. … if it does not do so, its business operations will be in serious trouble. KLM cannot afford to hire candidates who have limited employability due to the lack of corona vaccination. [1]
  • Furthermore, asking about deployability is not a violation of the fundamental rights of candidate pilots since there is no question of any kind of vaccination compulsion. As an employer, KLM is entitled to impose employability requirements in its hiring policy in order to assess whether a candidate is suitable. The candidate is free to decide whether to agree to those requirements. A candidate pilot can simply take up employment with another airline, even if the candidate has undergone training at the KFA. KLM respects that pilots who were already employed before Covid are questioning this new vaccine but that should not apply to new pilots. [1]
  • Moreover, according to KLM there is no unequal treatment of candidate pilots and pilots. All candidate pilots are treated equally and candidate pilots are not equal to pilots that are already employed by KLM. [1]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



In a summons dated 26 April 2022, VNV demanded a provision. This summons was not issued because KLM indicated that it would appear voluntarily, which it did. [1]

The oral hearing took place on 19 May 2022. Appearing for VNV were [name 1] , [name 2] , [name 3] and [name 4] , accompanied by the authorized representative. For KLM, [name 5] , [name 6] , [name 7] and [name 8] , also accompanied by the agents, appeared. KLM and VNV brought (further) documents into the proceedings beforehand. At the hearing the parties explained their positions and answered questions from the Subdistrict Court. [1]

After further debate, judgment was requested and a date for judgment was set. [1]



The Subdistrict Court:

Prohibits KLM with immediate effect from inquiring into and/or using information of candidates for vacancies for the position of airline pilot about their COVID-19 vaccination status and/or from rejecting candidates because they indicate that they have not been vaccinated and/or do not wish to take the vaccination, on pain of a penalty payment of €100,000 per violation; [1]

The Court’s Reasoning:

KLM argued that it only asks whether the pilots are fully deployable, of which, according to KLM, a vaccination against corona is a part. Quite apart from the fact that KLM asks directly about vaccination status, by asking about full deployability KLM is in fact also asking about vaccination status. By terminating the job application with immediate effect if the answer to the question of whether the candidate pilot has been vaccinated or wishes to be vaccinated is not forthcoming or is negative, KLM may be putting candidate pilots under pressure to (still) vaccinate. After all, without vaccination there is no job at KLM, for which the candidate pilots have all been trained. [1]

  • It is ruled that asking for and demanding a corona vaccination constitutes an unjustified infringement of the fundamental rights of the candidate pilots, in particular it violates the privacy of Article 8 of the ECHR. To this end, the following is considered. [1]
  • By requiring vaccination against corona, KLM infringes the privacy (Article 8 ECHR) of the candidate pilots. After all, the decision whether or not to be vaccinated is something that belongs pre-eminently to this private sphere. Requiring candidate pilots to have been vaccinated and to answer the question about vaccination status in the affirmative therefore constitutes a breach of this privacy. KLM thus leaves candidate pilots who wish to take up employment with KLM no choice in the matter. [1]
  • Such a breach may be justified under certain circumstances. … “In answering the question of whether such an infringement is justified, it must be examined whether the infringing act serves a legitimate purpose and whether it is an appropriate means of achieving that purpose (the necessity criterion); furthermore, it must be examined whether the infringement of the employee’s privacy is proportionate to the employer’s interest in achieving the intended purpose (the proportionality criterion), and whether the employer could reasonably achieve that purpose in a less intrusive manner (the subsidiarity criterion).” (ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA5802, [party] ) [1]
  • In brief, the purpose that KLM wishes to achieve by requiring candidate pilots to undergo a corona vaccination is that KLM, with due observance of the CAO agreements and taking into account the travel restrictions of the pilots already in service, can continue to manage the planning of the pilots. For the time being, the Subdistrict Court is of the opinion that this could be regarded as a legitimate objective. That objective could possibly also be achieved with the measure applied by KLM, namely by requiring the future pilots to be vaccinated. However, this measure does not prevent the prospective pilots from being subject to a travel restriction at some point after entering service. This may be for an entirely different (medical) reason or because the corona measures change, but also a pilot’s view of corona vaccinations may change after they enter service and the pilot may still forgo new necessary vaccinations against corona. Even if the remedy is suitable to achieve KLM’s intended purpose, which has in no way become plausible in this dispute, in the preliminary opinion it has not become sufficiently plausible that the remedy is proportionate, nor has it become plausible that the subsidiarity requirement has been met. To this end, the following is considered. [1]
  • It is evident that the interests of the candidate pilots in the present case are substantial, since they involve a violation of their personal privacy. KLM’s interest in arranging its schedule in accordance with the collective labour agreement and in organising its business operations in the best possible way is also present, but does not carry as much weight as these rights of the candidate pilots. This is all the more true since VNV has argued that there are alternatives to which the candidate pilots and many of the pilots already employed by KLM are willing to participate, such as (PCR) tests, which would also achieve the objective of effective planning. VNV also adequately explained during the hearing that the way in which KLM has currently defined the travel restrictions for existing pilots can also be improved considerably in consultation with VNV, which would make it possible to solve the identified planning problem. In view of the foregoing KLM has insufficiently substantiated that, if it takes on a few candidate pilots who have not been vaccinated, it will encounter such problems in a staff of over 3,000 pilots that it will no longer be able to complete the planning. In addition, as already considered above, the vaccination requirement does not mean that candidate pilots will not still be subject to a travel restriction because of corona in the future, both because the pilots may change their minds after they enter service or there may be reasons not to take possible future vaccinations after all, and because future measures are uncertain. [1]

  • The foregoing leads to the conclusion that for the time being it has become insufficiently plausible for the Court to rule on the merits that the measure taken by KLM is proportionate and that the purpose intended by KLM cannot be achieved in another manner. KLM therefore unjustly infringed upon the rights of the candidate pilots. This means that VNV’s claim to – in brief – prohibit KLM from asking candidate pilots about their vaccination status is allowable, as well as the penalty payment claimed in that respect. [1]

  • In view of the foregoing, VNV’s other claims regarding the AVG and the WMK need not be discussed. [1]

  • The claim to order KLM to still approach the rejected candidates will be dismissed. KLM has argued that it did not reject any candidate because he did not have or did not want to take the corona vaccinations, which VNV has not disputed (stating reasons). Accordingly, VNV has no interest in this part of its claims. [1]

  • KLM should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings as the party largely found against. [1]



…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



Pilot cardiac arrest in cockpit, vaccine cited

source: Odysee/AlsionMorrow

Court Hearing on KLM Court Jab Mandate Case -May 25, 2022 (Dutch)

source: Odysee/Potkaars Podcast

Pilot reports on Heart Attack on Plane after Jab -Apr 19, 2022

source: Pilot Bob Snow

USMC pilot forced out over Covid Jab, says they’re “guinea pigs” -May 26 2022

source: Odysee/AlsionMorrow

Pilot Vaccine Victim -Nov 2 2021

source: shortXXvids

PIlot Suing Over Vaccine Mandates -Jan 14 2022

source: Real America’s Voice

US Freedom Flyers – Pilots Fight Vaccine Mandates

source: Odysee/CitizenDave

Qantas Pilot on Jab Mandate –Sept 2021

source: Humanity’s Vault

Airline Employees Fight Back Against Mandates -Oct 2021

source: TomWoodsTV



  1. The Court Ruling
  2. Pilots’ emergency cry: vaccinations make flying unsafe (in Dutch)



Discrimination, Employment, KLM, Mandate, Netherlands, Pilot, Recruitment, Side Effects, Union, Vaccine, VNV 

Back to All Cases


Pfizer Nigeria Trovan Case

Pfizer Nigeria Trovan Case

Pfizer Nigeria Trovan Case

Re: the Legality of Pfizer’s procedures to trial & administer a new drug without consent that resulted in deaths & severe injury of children


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

aka: Rabi Abdullahi, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d (2d Cir. 2009)

  • Argued: July 12, 2007
  • Location: New York
  • Court: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals – Southern District of New York
  • Citations #: 562 F.3d 163
  • Docket #: 05-4863
  • Plaintiff: Rabi Abdullahi, et al
  • Defendant: Pfizer
  • Trial Type:
  • Judges: Pooler, B.D. Parker & Wesley
  • Status: End
  • Verdict: For the Plaintiff
  • Decided: Jan 30, 2009



The case involved Pfizer which conducted an unapproved, trial of its experimental antibiotic, Trovan on children in Nigeria. (1)

Plaintiffs-Appellants Rabi Abdullahi and other Nigerian children and their guardians sued Defendant-Appellee Pfizer, Inc. under the ATS (“the Abdullahi action”).

They alleged that Pfizer violated a customary international law norm prohibiting involuntary medical experimentation on humans when it tested an experimental antibiotic on children in Nigeria, including themselves, without their consent or knowledge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Ajudu Ismaila Adamu and others, also children and their guardians who were part of Pfizer’s Nigerian drug experiment, brought a similar action against Pfizer, alleging violations of the ATS, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), and the Connecticut Products Liability Act (“CPLA”) (“the Adamu action”) (2)

The appellants allege that at that time, Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporation, sought to gain the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for the use on children of its new antibiotic, Trovafloxacin Mesylate, marketed as “Trovan.” They contend that in April 1996, Pfizer, dispatched three of its American physicians to work with four Nigerian doctors to experiment with Trovan on children who were patients in Nigeria’s Infectious Disease Hospital (“IDH”) in Kano, Nigeria. Working in concert with Nigerian government officials, the team allegedly recruited two hundred sick children who sought treatment at the IDH and gave half of the children Trovan and the other half Ceftriaxone, an FDA-approved antibiotic the safety and efficacy of which was well-established. Appellants contend that Pfizer knew that Trovan had never previously been tested on children in the form being used and that animal tests showed that Trovan had life-threatening side effects, including joint disease, abnormal cartilage growth, liver damage, and a degenerative bone condition. Pfizer purportedly gave the children who were in the Ceftriaxone control group a deliberately low dose in order to misrepresent the effectiveness of Trovan in relation to Ceftriaxone. After approximately two weeks, Pfizer allegedly concluded the experiment and left without administering follow-up care. According to the appellants, the tests caused the deaths of eleven children, five of whom had taken Trovan and six of whom had taken the lowered dose of Ceftriaxone, and left many others blind, deaf, paralyzed, or brain-damaged. (2)

Appellants claim that Pfizer, working in partnership with the Nigerian government, failed to secure the informed consent of either the children or their guardians and specifically failed to disclose or explain the experimental nature of the study or the serious risks involved. Although the treatment protocol required the researchers to offer or read the subjects documents requesting and facilitating their informed consent, this was allegedly not done in *170 either English or the subjects’ native language of Hausa. The appellants also contend that Pfizer deviated from its treatment protocol by not alerting the children or their guardians to the side effects of Trovan or other risks of the experiment, not providing them with the option of choosing alternative treatment, and not informing them that the non-governmental organization Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) was providing a conventional and effective treatment for bacterial meningitis, free of charge, at the same site.[2] (2)

The appellants allege that, in an effort to rapidly secure FDA approval, Pfizer hastily assembled its test protocol at its research headquarters in Groton, Connecticut, and requested and received permission to proceed from the Nigerian government in March 1996. At the time, Pfizer also claimed to have secured approval from an IDH ethics committee. Appellants allege, however, that the March 1996 approval letter was backdated by Nigerian officials working at the government hospital well after the experiments had taken place and that at the time the letter was purportedly written, the IDH had no ethics committee.[3] Appellants also contend that the experiments were condemned by doctors, including one on Pfizer’s staff at the time of the Kano trial. (2)

*    *    *                   *    *    *                   *    *    *                   *    *    *                    *    *    *

In 1998, the FDA approved Trovan for use on adult patients only.

After reports of liver failure in patients who took Trovan, its use in America was eventually restricted to adult emergency care.

In 1999, the European Union banned its use.

*    *    *                   *    *    *                   *    *    *                   *    *    *                    *    *    *


Starting in 2001 several suits were taken to Nigerian courts, but without success.

Since then, a tectonic change has altered the relevant political landscape. In May 2007, the state of Kano brought criminal charges and civil claims against Pfizer, seeking over $2 billion in damages and restitution.[4] Around the same time, the federal government of Nigeria sued Pfizer and several of its employees, seeking $7 billion in damages.[5] None of these cases seek compensation for the subjects of the tests, who are the appellants before this Court. Pfizer then notified this Court that in light of these recent developments, which it believed required further consideration by the district court, it would not seek affirmance on the basis of forum non conveniens. (2)

In their twin complaints, which total 628 paragraphs, Plaintiffs make only four allegations concerning the role of the Nigerian government in the Trovan experiments:

(1) in order for the FDA to authorize the export of Trovan, “Pfizer obtained the required letter of request from the Nigerian government”; (

2) the government “arrang[ed] for Pfizer’s accommodation in Kano”;

(3) the government acted “to silence Nigerian physicians critical of [Pfizer’s] test”; and

(4) the government “assign[ed] Nigerian physicians to assist in the project.”[18] Elsewhere in their complaints, Plaintiffs note in conclusory fashion that a Nigerian doctor did not publicly object to the Trovan study because it “seemed to have the backing of the Nigerian government.” (2)



This case is significant as it challenges the legality of informed consent and the notion that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer may or may not experiment on people even in a foreign nation. It is further significant that the court cited the Nuremberg Code as: “the universally accepted norm in customary international law regarding nonconsensual medical experimentation.” (2)


Plaintiff’s Argument

The appellants ground their claims in four sources of international law that categorically forbid medical experimentation on non-consenting human subjects: (1) the Nuremberg Code, which states as its first principle that “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”; (2) the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, which sets forth ethical principles to guide physicians world-wide and provides that human subjects should be volunteers and grant their informed consent to participate in research; (3) the guidelines authored by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Services (“CIOMS”), which require “the voluntary informed consent of [a] prospective subject”; and (4) Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), which provides that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”[7] (2)

The district court found that “non-consensual medical experimentation violates the law of nations and, therefore, the laws of the United States” and cited the Nuremberg Code for support. (2)

The Defendants argued that the Nuremberg Code was relevant:

This history illustrates that from its origins with the trial of the Nazi doctors at Nuremburg through its evolution in international conventions, agreements, declarations, and domestic laws and regulations, the norm prohibiting nonconsensual medical experimentation on human subjects has become firmly embedded and has secured *184 universal acceptance in the community of nations. Unlike our dissenting colleague’s customary international law analysis, which essentially rests on the mistaken assumption that ratified international treaties are the only valid sources of customary international law for ATS purposes, see Dissent at 200-02, we reach this conclusion as a result of our review of the multiplicity of sources—including international conventions, whether general or particular, and international custom as identified through international agreements, declarations and a consistent pattern of action by national law-making authorities—that our precedent requires us to examine for the purpose of determining the existence of a norm of customary international law. Our dissenting colleague’s reasoning fails to engage the incompatibility of nonconsensual human testing with key sources of customary international law identified in Article 38 of the ICJ’s statute, most importantly international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law, as well as the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. See supra pp. 174-75. (2)


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Related Previous Cases

The ruling cites the Nuremberg Code as an important precedent for the following reasons:

In August 1947, Military Tribunal 1, staffed by American judges and prosecutors and conducted under American procedural rules, see George J. Annas, The Nuremberg Code in U.S. Courts: Ethics versus Expediency, in The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code 201, 201 (George J. Annas & Michael A. Grodin eds., 1992), promulgated the Nuremberg Code as part of the tribunal’s final judgment against fifteen doctors who were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for conducting medical experiments without the subjects’ consent, Brandt, 2 Nuremberg Trials, at 181-82. Among the nonconsensual experiments that the tribunal cited as a basis for their convictions were the testing of drugs for immunization against malaria, epidemic jaundice, typhus, smallpox and cholera. Id. at 175-178. Seven of the convicted doctors were sentenced to death and the remaining eight were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. Id. at 298-300. The tribunal emphasized that (2)

[i]n every single instance appearing in the record, subjects were used who did not consent to the experiments; indeed, as to some of the experiments, it is not even contended by the defendants that the subjects occupied the status of volunteers. (2)

Id. at 183. The judgment concluded that “[m]anifestly human experiments under such conditions are contrary to the principles of the law of nations as they result from usages established among civilized *179 peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience.” Id. (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). The Code created as part of the tribunal’s judgment therefore emphasized as its first principle that “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” Id. at 181. (2)

The American tribunal’s conclusion that action that contravened the Code’s first principle constituted a crime against humanity is a lucid indication of the international legal significance of the prohibition on nonconsensual medical experimentation. As Justices of the Supreme Court have recognized, “[t]he medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable.United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 687, 107 S. Ct. 3054, 97 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added); see also id. at 709-10, 107 S. Ct. 3054 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). (2)

Moreover, both the legal principles articulated in the trials’ authorizing documents and their application in judgments at Nuremberg occupy a position of special importance in the development of bedrock norms of international law. United States courts examining the Nuremberg judgments have recognized that “[t]he universal and fundamental rights of human beings identified by Nuremberg—rights against genocide, enslavement, and other inhumane acts …—are the direct ancestors of the universal and fundamental norms recognized as jus cogens,” from which no derogation is permitted, irrespective of the consent or practice of a given State. Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Arg., 965 F.2d 699, 715 (9th Cir.1992) (cited in Sampson v. F.R.G., 250 F.3d 1145, 1150 (7th Cir.2001)). As Telford Taylor, who first served as an assistant to Justice Robert Jackson during his time as Chief Prosecutor for the IMT and then became Chief of Counsel for War Crimes on the Nuremberg trials held under the authority of Control Council Law No. 10, explained, “Nuremberg was based on enduring [legal] principles and not on temporary political expedients, and this fundamental point is apparent from the reaffirmation of the Nuernberg principles in Control Council Law No. 10, and their application and refinement in the 12 judgments rendered under that law during the 3-year period, 1947 to 1949.” Taylor, Report on Nuernberg War Crimes Trials, at 107 (emphasis added). (2)


Additional international law sources support the norm’s status as customary international law.

  • The European Union embraced the norm prohibiting nonconsensual medical experimentation through a 2001 Directive passed by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The Directive accepted the informed consent principles of the 1996 version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Council Directive 2001/20/EC, preamble (2), 2001 O.J. (L 121) 37(EC) [hereinafter 2001 Clinical Trial Directive]. It also required member States to adopt rules protecting individuals incapable of giving informed consent and permitting clinical trials only where “the trial subject or, when the person is not able to give informed consent, his legal representative has given his written consent after being informed of the nature, significance, implications and risks of the clinical trial.Id. at art. (1), (2)(d). The Directive further required all member States to implement by 2004 domestic laws, regulations, and administrative provisions to comply with its informed consent requirements. Id. at art. 22(1). (2)
  • Since 1997, thirty-four member States of the Council of Europe have also signed the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, a binding convention and a source of customary international law. (2)
  • In 2005, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which requires “the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned” for research-oriented treatments. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, UNESCO Gen. Conf. Res., at art. 6, 33rd Sess., 33 C/Resolution 36, (Oct. 19, 2005). (2)



The court ruled to ” REVERSE the judgments of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings.”
Regarding the Nuremberg Code it said “The Nuremberg trials are unquestionably one of this country’s greatest and most enduring contributions to the field of international law.” (2)



Pfizer agreed to pay 75 million dollars in damages if the plaintiffs take DNS tests. Many refused as they did not trust Pfizer with further “medical” procedures.


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…



Pfizer’s Trovan Trial & Settlement

source: Al Jazeera English

Pfizer Criminal case adjourned until October 2015

source: AP Archive

Pfizer Criminal History

source: Odysee



  1. The Significance of the Nuremberg Code
  2. Court Ruling



Pfizer, Informed Consent, Trovan, Nigeria, Nuremberg, Court of Appeals, USA

Back to All Cases


Measles Isolation Case

Measles Isolation Case

Measles Isolation Case

Re: the Dispute of the outcome from a competition that challenged its participants to prove the detection of the measles virus


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Feb 16, 2016
  • Location: Stuttgart, Germany
  • Court: Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart
  • Case #: OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 16.2.2016, 12 U 63/15
  • Plaintiff: Mr. David Bardens
  • Defendant: Dr. Stefan J Lanka, PhD
  • Trial Type: Civil
  • Judge: Karl-Heinz Oleschkewitz
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Defendant

*updated: Jan 21 2022


Stefan Lanka is the biologist/virologist who detected what is arguably the first virus proven to exist and was one of the early critics of the AIDS-HIV dogma. [7]

In 2011, a former Federal Minister of Justice contacted Dr. Stefan Lanka to ask for scientific data that may help stop the legalization of mandatory vaccination for measles. [1]. Thereafter, in consultation with a leading senior state prosecutor, a plan to offer prize money for the proof of the “measles virus” was formed. In doing so, the concerned parties had realized that it would be impossible to challenge the existence of the “measles virus” directly in the court room. They anticipated the possibility that a civil trial may result from the “measles virus bet”, which could be used to legally challenge the science behind the claims that the ‘measles virus’ exists, and that vaccines for measles were safe and effective. (see pg 9 of “the virus misconception part 1) (1)

On November 24, 2011, the defendant Dr. Lanka offered a prize money with the header announcing



The measles virus

EUR 100,000!


The Diameter



The context for the bet is detailed here and here but also briefly summarized below: (2) (3)

The text that followed this announcement not only provided the specifications that a contender needed to follow, but also provided a detailed context for the bet. A summary of these is provided below. For details, see (2) (3)

  1. Consequent to the swine flu debacle of 2009, vaccine sales experienced a swift downfall, with the German market experiencing a 29% reduction in revenue for influenza vaccines in 2011 compared to an year before.
  2. In 2011, the German government and the WHO drummed up fearful scenarios of a measles pandemic and its severe consequences as briefed below.
  • Prior to the bet, brochures distributed throughout Germany gruesomely painted the measles virus as lethal and capable of inducing severe brain damage. On the basis of these threats, vaccinations were strongly advocated for the entire family.
  • Soon thereafter, WHO announced 26,000 confirmed cases of measles in 53 countries since Jan 1, 2011, with 14,000 being in France. This raised the spectre of a measles pandemic invading directly from France. (4)
  • In November 2011, the government proclaimed Paul Ehlrich Institute as having demonstrated measles virus transmission through the trachea, and showcased how attenuated measles viruses were even being used in cancer therapy.
  • Then followed the claim that 164,000 people died of measles every year out of the 55 million people infected. The frenzy was exacerbated with the announcement that measles cases had doubled in Berlin with the disease taking a severe course in many.
  • Soon came a statement from the Berlin health senate: “The current situation calls for a review of vaccine hesitancy especially among the enlightened”


The Rules & the importance of the Diameter of the Measles Virus

Against this background, Dr. Lanka explained why the diameter of the virus was a key requirement to win the bet. Within the framework of the Basic Law and the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), the Robert Koch Institute had a responsibility to conduct independent research on the causes of measles. If indeed German researchers worked with the measles virus on behalf of the Federal government for vaccine research and for cancer research, this research must surely be documented, and as a primary attribute of the measles virus, its diameter must be known and recorded.

On November 24th, 2011 Dr. Stefan Lanka offered a prize of 100,000 Euros to any person who could present a scientific publication in which the existence of the measles virus is claimed, proven, and in which its diameter is determined. He emphasized that the money will not be paid if the diameter is estimated from a model representation or from a computer graphic.

Further, Dr. Lanka encouraged people to address questions about the measles virus including the determination of its diameter with the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and recommended the citizens to report any failures in their response to the Federal Ministry of Health.


The Challenger

The plaintiff, Mr. David Bardens, a young medical student had first contacted Dr. Lanka the defendant on January 16, 2012 to confirm the bet and its conditions. Within a period of 15 days, he presented a collection of 6 (six) papers which he claimed contained the scientific proof that the defendant sought through his bet.

However, being the scientist who first isolated and biochemically characterized the first viral structure from algae and being thoroughly familiar with the scientific literature on the ‘measles virus’, Dr. Lanka rejected this claim. The first paper in the collection was written by John Enders, the ‘discoverer’ of the ‘measles virus’, together with Peebles in 1954. In this paper, Enders reported that cells grown in a culture died after the introduction of the saliva or blood of a measles patient.

Concluding his report, Enders stated that such a death of cells could be evidence either of the presence and proliferation of the suspected measles virus, or of unknown factors including unknown viruses in the monkey kidney cells used in the culture. Finally, Enders admitted that his laboratory experiments may have no relevance to real measles in humans.


The First Trial – April 2014 to March 2015

Lower regional court of Ravensburg (Landgerichts Ravensburg vom 12.03.2015 – 4 O 346/13)

Legal arbitration was sought by David Bardens in the Ravensburg Regional Court in 2014. Although, Bardens did not strictly adhere to the conditions of the bet, the court accepted his case. The presiding judge Matthias Schneider appointed Prof. Andreas Podbielski to deliver an expert opinion on the scientific matter under question — whether the papers presented by Bardens met the conditions of the bet laid out by the defendant.

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. [7]

On March 12, 2015, judge M. Schneider made a ‘chair judgement’ based on the written opinion of Prof. Podbielski, just after this expert was questioned in the court. In this manner, Judge Schneider prevented the full course of civil proceedings, in particular counter claims by the defendant. In this ‘chair judgement’, the judge ordered the defendant to pay the prize money of Euro 100,000 to the plaintiff.


The second Trial – December 2016

Higher regional court of Stuttgart (OLG Stuttgart Urteil vom 16.2.2016, 12 U 63/15)

Following the Ravensburg decision Dr. Lanka appealed this decision at the Higher regional court of Stuttgart as outlined below. (6)



Scientific significance:

In Science, the concept of a virus is ill defined. Around the birth of germ theory,

  • it used to mean a poison associated with disease.
  • Later, it was believed to be a protein that could self-replicate.
  • After nucleic acids were identified as the genetic material, the virus was believed to a nucleic acid molecule surrounded by a protein coat.

In the scientific literature, the existence of a virus is inferred on the basis of effects alleged to be caused by viruses. One such alleged effect was reported by Enders and Peebles in 1954 and forms the basis of the majority of virus discoveries.

This effect is the death of cells in a tissue culture after a bodily fluid obtained from a sick patient is introduced into the culture. However, to date this is not the only experimental condition that is changed in such setups. Along with the introduction of the patient sample, the setup is changed with respect to concentration of antibiotics and nutrient solutions. In connection with the measles experiments of Enders and Peebles, Dr. Lanka has scientifically demonstrated that the death of cells in these experiments result from the experimental setup and not because of the introduction of bodily fluids from sick patients.


Legal significance:

This case raises questions about

  • the process of scientific facts in virology,
  • the fragility of the ‘expert judgement’ of scientific experts,
  • the legality of the measles vaccination carried out in Germany, and
  • whether the Robert Koch Institute is justified in not carrying out independent research on the causes of measles.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Mr. David Bardens, the plaintiff, claimed that a collection of six papers contains scientific proof of the existence of the measles virus and that the diameter of the virus is determined in these works. (3) (5)


Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argued that the scientific papers submitted by the plaintiff did not carry out control experiments to rule out what Bardens was claiming as proof of the measles virus was not from cellular debris or byproducts of its putrefaction, or of vesicles used by the cell to transport material in and out of the cell (see Nobel Prize in Medicine/physiology for 2013). In addition, a single paper in which the diameter of the virus was reported along with that of the discovery of the virus was required to win the bet. (5)




“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. [7]

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. [7]

Further, in explanation of the decision, the court stated, that the person offering the reward also decides the conditions the bid must fulfill.” [7]

The judges discovered several procedural violations. For example, the primary evidence in the case was the six papers claimed by Bardens to contain scientific proof on the measles virus. This evidence was not collected by the Ravensburg court before it made its judgement. (5) (6)

Secondly, they found inconsistencies in the opinion of the scientific expert appointed by the Ravensburg court. One of the interesting facts is that the scientific expert did not have any scientific publications in the field of virology at the time he made his expert opinion. Further, they found that the expert had either not read all the 6 papers or had deliberately misinterpreted them. (5) (6)

Most importantly, the Stuttgart court could not find any logical backing to the assertion that the six papers together or individually did not fulfill the criteria of the award — proof of the measles virus along with a determination of its primary physical attribute, the diameter of the virus (in other words, an electron micrograph of the virus particle along with a biochemical analysis of the constituent molecules of the same virus particle). (5) (6)


The higher regional court at Stuttgart overturned the decision of the Ravensburg court and decided that the six papers submitted by Bardens did not individually or collectively prove the existence of the measles virus along with an estimate of its diameter.

(Note: this collection includes the seminal paper on the ‘discovery of the measles virus’ by Enders JF and Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954, 86(2): 277–286.) (5) (6)

As a result, the plaintiff Barden’s claims about winning the bet were dismissed. In the course of the judgement several interesting facts came into light. Among these, the ones listed in paragraph 30 of the judgement are most relevant to the judgement: (6)

  • The six publications submitted (by Bardens) did not fulfill the criteria of the award, neither individually nor as a whole.
  • The Ravensburg court did not (collect and) examine the papers under dispute (claimed by Bardens to contain unquivocal proof of the measles virus; neither did Bardens submit them to the court).
  • The Ravensburg court accepted arbitrary statements by the expert Prof. Podbielski who had interpreted them contrary to the statements and intentions of the authors of the 6 scientific papers mentioned here.
  • The statement received from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) claimed that the measles virus contains ribosomes. However, ribosomes are only found in living organisms and by the expert statements of Prof. Podbielski refuted that the materials claimed by RKI is a virus.
  • The Ravensburg judgement wrongly stated Prof. Podbielski as having said that the scientists who wrote the six papers had carried out control experiments (the control experiments serve to rule out the possibility that cellular debris were misinterpreted as the alleged measles virus the scientists were seeking).

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. [7]

only an overview of all these publications could be “regarded“ as “evidence“ was the verdict, given by the judges [7]

The judge went on to say, that a court could not decide upon such scientific questions. This must happen within the scientific community. [7]



After losing the case at Stuttgart, Bardens tried in vain to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).

His case was rejected by BGH on December 1, 2016. (5)

Changing Measles Definition?
  • “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. [7]
  • In the latest edition in 2013, the measles virus is not spherical any more, but can be ‘various shapes’. [7]
  • 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. “ [7]
  • and lastly, another article by Hans Tolzin points out the lack of controls in the presented publications. [7]
Does the trial prove or disprove the existence of the virus?

Lanka’s critics, 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. however they don’t say the virus IS proven, either.

Hans Tolzin of Impfreport (Vaccination report), a leading website on independent vaccination education, wrote: 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.”

Lack of control Experiments

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. [7]

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. (ie: the claimed virus could be artifacts of the methods and ingredients used in the experiment) [7]

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“ [7]

2017 Controlled Measles Experiment
Independent scientists published in the magazine Wissenschaftsplus (April 2017) a repeat of the original 1954 virus experiment from Enders & Peebles together with a control (which was not done originally) [8]
they write: We, on behalf of Dr. Lanka, checked whether agents other than the alleged measles virus can lead to cell fusion with resulting cell death (= syncytia formation) in cell cultures that look exactly like the one in the standardized protocol based on the publication by Enders & Peebles from 1954 which has become globally recognized for the detection of the measles virus. For this purpose, work was carried out strictly in accordance with the protocol of the World Health Organization (WHO) for the detection of measles infection in cell cultures. [8]
The results reported were: [8]
Depending on the non-viral and non-infectious substances added, changes in cell morphology could be observed at different times, which since 1954 is always equated with the “isolation” of the “measles virus”. Particularly after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin/streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficiency conditions (1% FCS), changes in the cell morphology were found that were microscopically identical to the syncytia formation described as the measles virus (Illustration 1).
The studies have clearly shown that syncytia formation is not specific for measles infection. Thus, the forgotten observations of both Enders & Peebles as well as Bech & von Magnus have confirmed that Enders & Peebles and successors proving the existence of a virus with this technique was only assumption
Mandatory Measles Vaccination in Germany

On March 1, 2020, the Measles Protection Act, which amends several laws, entered into force in Germany. The Act makes measles protection mandatory for children one year or older who attend daycare, school, or other community facilities, and for persons working in those facilities or in medical facilities. Furthermore, measles vaccinations will be mandatory for persons living or working in refugee and asylum-seeker accommodations. Noncompliance will result in fines, and unvaccinated children and persons will be barred from the respective facilities. [9]

The Debate Continues

The Covid Crisis has made this debate a hot topic. Many new voices have started to question the status quo. US Dr Kaufman has become a leading champion questioning the evidence of the virus science.

The consequences of virus’s not existing are enormous. It would mean that the covid pandemic was non-existent. It would mean the collapse of a mega empire of pharmaceutical drugs. It would mean that billions of people were given and in many cases forced to take drugs that were both experimental and unnecessary.



Further Research




The Measles Myth

source: Dr Sam Bailey

Measles in Court

source: The Trueman Show

Report on the Measles Trial

source: ….

Dr Lanka on the Measles trial

source: ….



  1. The Virus Misconception
  2. Masern Prozess
  3. OpenJur
  4. WHO Press Release
  5. Der Masern-Virus-Prozess
  6. Justiz in Baden-Württemberg
  7. Measles virus? There is no proof of a measles virus says court!
  8. On The Track Of Enders Experiments (translated & edited by northerntracey & John Blaid)
  9. Germany: New Act Makes Measles Vaccinations Mandatory



Bet, brain damage, Competition, control experiments, David Bardens, Definition, Enders, Existence, germany, Infection Protection Act, Lanka, Measles, Nobel Prize, Pandemic, Paul Ehlrich Institute, Peebles, Podbielski, Prize, Ravensburg, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Stuttgart, Virus

Back to All Cases