Virus Science Case

Virus Science Case

Virus Science Case

Re: the Legality of Health Acts supported by Science that does not follow the Scientific Method


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 2022
  • Location: Hamburg, Germany
  • Court: Hamburg District Court
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: Marvin Haberland
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: City of Hamburg
  • Trial Type:
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD

*updated Oct 16, 2022



A German engineer and researcher Marvin Haberland has challenged the court for a fine he received for not wearing a mask. As he describes in an online interview with New Zealand Dr Sam Bailey, he is taking this as an opportunity to challenge the legality of the German covid measures. These measures he says are based on invalid scientific methodologies which the German law says should be illegal. [1]

He states that if he were to directly challenge the law, the German courts would not allow his case to be heard. However a case challenging a fine would be heard and offers an opportunity to challenge the health law and the science of virology. [1]

A court date was set for October 19 at the Hamburg District Court. It was awaited with great excitement – and many people had also already announced their intention to attend the public hearing. So this trial is not only unique, but also explosive. [2]

But now the district court has canceled the date. The reason given is that the judge has fallen ill. The court has not yet announced when the trial, scheduled for October 19, will be rescheduled. [2]

Regarding the merits of his case, Haberland said

“If the judge should actually rule against me, then that would be okay for me personally in a way. Because then we would have a verdict that says: In virology, you don’t have to do any control experiments, so to speak. But that would, to a certain extent, make the whole thing ridiculous. [3]

In any case, the judge has everything before him – and he is actually completely free in his decision. Either he examines all my evidence requests and then makes his judgment or he does not look at all this and rejects the evidence requests. Then, however, he would have to justify why he does that. After that, I would go to the next court instance. And there is no “alternative” anymore, i.e. everything has to be examined. In this respect, nothing bad can actually happen now. One way or another, it will lead to success in terms of educational work.” [3]



If this case is upheld it would show that the science of virology has not followed the scientific measures and all measures and restrictive acts would have to end.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Essentially the plaintiff argues that the German Law  and the Infection Protection Act, requires all science to follow the “Scientific Method”. This would entail controlled studies and detailed recording of methodologies to show that whatever is claimed could not be falsified. Mr Haberland argues that this required process was never completed and that consequently none of the covid measures are legal. [1]

In a German interview with Transition News:

“I have been working intensively on the subject of health, nutrition and medicine for five years now and have come across the fact that there is quite a controversial discussion in science as to whether things are done scientifically in virology and whether the scientific method is applied correctly. After all, even in the German Infection Protection Act, which is quite unique in the world, it is explicitly stated right at the beginning in paragraph 1 that everyone involved, every researcher, every institution, every authority, every university and ultimately also every doctor is obliged to work according to the state of the art in science. [3]

In particular, this also includes conducting control experiments. That is quite clear. Therefore, I have meticulously reviewed all relevant publications and asked the Robert Koch Institute and all authorities for publications in which the pathogen has been detected. You, Torsten, had also written to five authors who have carried out authoritative studies in the matter of SARS-CoV-2 detection – and I have also read all these studies. I noticed the same thing that Stefan Lanka and other scientists have found out, namely that in none of these studies corresponding control experiments were made.” [3]

A control experiment he explains is:

“For example, I want to prove that I can break a window pane with a feather. To do this, I have to do an experiment that can prove or verify this hypothesis – and then I also have to offer an experiment that can be used to falsify the hypothesis. [3]

For this I tie the feather to a stone so that it can fly better. Afterwards I throw the stone and the feather in connected form through the window and see what happens. Of course, the window also breaks. [3]

If I did not do a control experiment, I could theoretically conclude that it was the spring that caused the pane to break. The control experiment would now consist of taking away the independent variable to be investigated, i.e. the spring, and throwing the stone alone through the window – and then seeing whether the glass then remains intact or not. Only then will I know for sure whether the spring can be held causally responsible for the glass breakage. By the way, the spring stands here for the particles, which are claimed to be viruses. But the spring cannot be held accountable for the shattering of the window, because of course this also happens when the stone hits the glass alone. [3]

Such an experiment has really never been done. And there are even institutions that openly admit that.” [3]

“As part of my court case, I sent a request based on the Freedom of Information Act to the Doherty Intsitute at the University of Melbourne. This institute had published a study in 2020 that was the first outside of China that virologists claimed to have isolated “SARS-CoV-2.” I wanted to know from the authors of this paper whether they had carried out corresponding control experiments. And they actually wrote me back that they had not done such control experiments. [3]

Thereupon I asked: Why don’t you do any controls? And the answer was that they didn’t have enough capacity left for that. Their study was published as having no control experiment. But also in the guidelines of the German Research Foundation, for example, it is clearly stated with regard to what scientific work means that one should not publish early before one has finished all documentation and thus also all control experiments. [3]

I also received an answer from France, namely from the scientific director of the world-famous Institut Pasteur in Paris, which corresponds to the Robert Koch Institute here. According to this, no control tests were carried out there either. This, too, is now before the judge. He must now decide whether, according to Section 1 of the Infection Protection Act, the scientific character is still given.” [3]

“It is completely undisputed in science that you have to control your results. That is also recognized worldwide. The Charité itself also writes that in its guidelines. Just like the Robert Koch Institute, they are committed to the methods of good scientific practice published by the German Research Foundation. And every researcher has these guidelines in his or her employment contract. Among other things, it says that you should always and consistently challenge yourself, that you should document everything you do. And everyone who receives research funding in Germany is obliged to comply with these scientific rules. In this respect, this also applies to the Charité. [3]

I have submitted numerous motions for evidence. These include a request to the judge that he ask a biologist of his choice whether he can present a study in which a virus has been detected, including a control experiment. Another request to the court is to ask a laboratory or virologist to perform an appropriate experiment.” [3]

“In the soldiers’ trial before the Federal Administrative Court, for example, extensive motions for evidence were filed and experts were even heard – and yet in the end, this highest German court did not appreciate all this and ruled against the plaintiff soldiers. Does something like that affect your confidence? [3]

Of course, you can never say that there are no viruses. Because you can’t prove the non-existence of something. You can only prove the existence of something. And, it should be emphasized again, at least according to the current state of science and according to the scientific methods, no one has ever proven a virus.” [3]


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…



…More information is needed…


Further Research

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



COVID Goes To Court

source: Odysee / DrSamBailey

Dr. Stefan Lanka: Biology as it is not

source: Odysee / Lanka

FOIAs Collected form around the World show no evidence of Covid Isolation

source: Odysee / shortXXvids



  1. Marvin Haberlands Gerichtstermin am 19. Oktober in Hamburg abgesagt

  2. Selbst das Institut Pasteur machte keine Kontrollversuche – und hat somit ‹SARS-CoV-2› nicht nachgewiesen



Bailey, Charité, Control, Controlled Experiment, Doherty Intsitute, Engelbrecht, Existence, FOIA, German Infection Protection Act, Germany, Haberland, Hamburg, Isolation, Lanka, Mania, Marvin, Massey, RKI, Robert Koch Institute, Science, Scientific Method, University of Melbourne, Virology, Virus

Back to All Cases




Lanka Letter to Health Minister

Re: The unscientific nature of virology & the danger of that when making policy



Click on the buttons in the lower left corner to go to another page


Dr Stefan Lanka Langenargen 5.10.2021

Federal Minister of Health Jens Spahn Friedrichstraße 108

10117 Berlin

Urgent need for action on SARS-CoV-2 and compulsory measles vaccination

Dear Mr Jens Spahn, Federal Minister of Health,

You are the main person responsible in Germany for establishing the legal Corona/Covid measures and the measles vaccination obligation. The Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG) interferes with several otherwise inalienable fundamental rights. For example, the right to life, physical integrity and freedom according to the Basic Law (GG) Article 2 (2): “Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. The freedom of the person is inviolable. These rights may only be interfered with on the basis of a law.”

Section 1 (2) IfSG requires all those involved with the examination, planning and implementation of corona/covid measures and compulsory measles vaccination to “design and support those in accordance with the respective state of medical and epidemiological science and technology.”

They have failed to check or have checked the statements of virology about the claims of the existence of an alleged new SARS-CoV-2 and a measles virus for scientificity, compliance with the rules of scientific work. These rules of scientific work, in order to be allowed to call statements scientific, have been fixed in writing since 1998, are international and valid for all disciplines. These rules are part of the employment contracts of scientists who use taxpayers’ money.

These rules of scientific work are obviously violated by virology. The prescribed control tests to exclude errors and self-deception have never been carried out and published.

This easily verifiable fact proves that the statements of virologists are not scientific, but must be described as anti-scientific. Since the basis of our democracy is science in essential areas, this anti-scientific behaviour of virology must be called anti-democratic and unconstitutional in your responsibility. I refer here to Article GG 5 (3): “Art and science, research and teaching are free. The freedom of teaching does not release from loyalty to the constitution.” Teaching is what you and others pass off in public as scientific facts.

The logical conclusion is that the requirement by the IfSG to effectively interfere with fundamental rights is not met. Since the scientificity is not given, which the IfSG demands in § 1 (2), but which has so far been tacitly, recklessly to grossly negligently assumed or asserted against better knowledge, all subsequent paragraphs of the IfSG are ineffective and not binding.

This means that all Corona/Covid measures and the measles vaccination obligation have no legal force, but are unlawful, i.e. illegal. I point out to you that I have already personally pointed out these and other relevant facts to you on 17.3.2020 and subsequently.

Based on these easily recognizable and verifiable facts, I call upon you to immediately withdraw all Corona/Covid measures and the compulsory measles vaccination, to call the responsible national, international virologists, other “scientists” involved to account and to take responsibility for what has happened.

Due to the fact of the lack of control experiments in virology since 1954 and the fact of a purely mathematical construction of the so-called gene sequence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 and/or due to the legally binding judgement of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court (OLG Stgt) of 16.2.2016, AZ: 12 U 63/15, in the so-called measles virus trial, the following applies:

With this finding of fact, the legal force of all Corona/Covid measures and that of the measles vaccination obligation ceases to apply immediately, even individually.

I point out that extensive “other remedies” to which Article 20 (4) GG calls for have not been successful so far.

Comments on:

From reading this and all other publications confirming the sequence strand once given, three facts clearly emerge:

1. a hereditary strand that would correspond to the published sequence listing has never been detected. No genetic strand of a virus was found in the mixture of nucleic acids obtained from a human with pneumonia (and later from other humans). Even after the first round of artificial, extremely strong and non-specific propagation by PCR technique of millions of short fragments of nucleic acids, no sequences were ever discovered that, when put together, would give the sequence sequence of a virus’ genome strand finally presented to the public.

2. using the sequence data generated in the first round of nucleic acid propagation, short pieces of nucleic acids are biochemically generated for the propagation of nucleic acids by PCR, so-called primers. Depending on the protocol, these artificially generated primers themselves yield approx. 4-20% of the sequence sequence of what is ultimately presented as the sequence sequence of SARS-CoV-2 after this second step of PCR propagation. This second PCR amplification process for the subsequent mathematical, so-called bioinformatic formation of the sequence sequence is called deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing, among other things. The fact that an extremely unscientific high number of cycles of PCR is used here (35-45, so-called Ct value), in which artificial nucleic acid sequences are automatically generated that do not exist in reality, is further proof of the anti-scientific nature of virology, but plays no role in the argumentation presented here.

It follows from points 1. and 2. that no genetic strand of a virus has ever been found. Instead, existing fragments of nucleic acids were first multiplied biochemically, by means of double PCR, strongly and with an extremely high error rate. The sequence sequences of these millions of artificially produced nucleic acids were determined, then mathematically subdivided into much shorter sequence sequences and combined with each other as desired. From the multitude of these arbitrary combination products, special software programmes are used to select those that match a nucleic acid once it has been specified. The resulting mathematical construct is output as the genetic strand of a virus.

This proves that it has never been possible to mathematically construct the alleged hereditary strand of the alleged virus from sequences of nucleic acids that actually exist. The mathematical construction of the alleged genetic strand of the alleged SARS-Cov-2 succeeds only after two rounds of unspecific and extreme propagation by PCR technique.

The anti-scientific nature of all virologists involved is proven by the fact that in the publication by Prof. Yong-Zhen Zhang from Shanghai, who together with his co-workers discovered and specified the alleged sequence of the viral genome of the alleged SARS-CoV-2, the mandatory control experiments are missing and this conspicuous omission was and is tolerated. The compulsory control experiments here are the attempt to construct the sequence of a hereditary strand of claimed or suspected new viruses using nucleic acids from healthy humans and a wide variety of organisms. They are the prerequisite for being allowed to call a statement scientific. They also have the task of recognising and avoiding misinterpretations.

In none of the subsequent publications, with which the sequence given by Prof. Yong-Zhen Zhang was repeated, are there any control attempts, even the words “control” or “negative control” are missing. Not only have the virologists disproved themselves with their actions, they themselves have proven their anti-scientific nature and documented it in each of their numerous publications.

II. judgement OLG Stuttgart, AZ: 12 U 63/15, 16.2.2016 in the measles virus trial

The measles virus trial, initiated by me in 2011, achieved the goal in 2017 of generating legally effective proof that all virology, not just measles virology, acts anti-scientifically. Since 2017, it has been part of German jurisprudence that all virology lacks a scientific basis. Within the measles virus trial, it has been documented that the mandatory control experiments required by science have never been carried out and documented since 1954. Therefore, all virologists involved have overlooked the fact that they themselves produce effects which they interpret as viral by means of applied techniques. Thus, as exemplified by SARS-Cov-2, typical bio-molecules are mentally assembled into virus models that do not exist in reality.

In the lawsuit, a medical doctor claimed the €100,000 prize money offered for scientific proof of the measles virus. His claim was upheld in 2014 because he submitted six publications, each claiming to prove the existence of the measles virus. The forensic expert appointed by the court of first instance, the cognisant court, the Ravensburg Regional Court, found that none of the publications submitted contained proof of the existence of a virus. This fact was confirmed by the Higher Regional Court of Stgt in its judgment of 16 February 2016, which became final in 2017 and by which I was acquitted of having to pay the plaintiff the suspended €100,000.

In the minutes of the hearing of the Ravensburg Regional Court of 12.3.2015, AZ: 4 O 346/13, it is documented that the court-appointed expert states that none of the six publications contains the control tests prescribed in science, which are also referred to as negative controls. Thus, the court-appointed expert has proven – which was also confirmed by four other expert opinions that I submitted – that the entire field of virology is acting anti-scientifically. The logical conclusion: all statements of virology are neither practically nor legally usable, but must be rejected as self-deception and deception of others.

In addition, the oldest of the six publications that was submitted and which was judicially determined to contain no proof of the existence of a virus has become the exclusive basis of all virology since 1954. This means that with the final judgement of the OLG Stgt of 16.2.2016, the entire virology, which claims the existence of disease-causing viruses, is deprived of its scientific and legal basis.

The details of this can be found in my article “The Federal Court of Justice lets the belief in viruses perish” in the magazine w+ 2/2017, which since 17.3.2020 in your files and can be found freely on the internet, on my page under “Important texts”.

As a human being, I ask you,

as an active scientist, virologist with a doctorate and discoverer of a useful structure now called “giant viruses” and “viro-plankton”, I ask you,

as a citizen and sovereign of the FRG, I demand of you, as my public servant,

that you immediately withdraw the Corona/Covid measures and the compulsory measles vaccination.

I expect you to admit your omissions to the population and to cooperate in repairing the damage caused to the body and soul of the population and the economy by the unjustifiable Corona/Covid measures and by the compulsory measles vaccination.

Yours sincerely from Lake Constance

Dr Stefan Lanka

Langenargen, 5.10.2021


Lanka, Spahn, Health Minister, Germany, Virology, Measles

Back to All Cases