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


Arrest-Willem Engel

Arrest-Willem Engel

Arrest: Willem Engel

Re: the persecution of a Dutch activist who dared to exercise his Right to Free Speech & Resistance to challenge the government’s extreme Corona Measures


Back to All Cases

Willem Christiaan Engel (Utrecht, March 15, 1977) is the founder of the action group Viruswaarheid that criticizes the corona policy of the Dutch government. Furthermore Willem Engel is a dance teacher.

Engel was a scientist in Leiden, where he lived between 1996 and 2010. He did PhD research in Leiden and Enschede between 2002 and 2008. Since 2000 he also began to take an interest in dancing, in Zouk in particular. Zouk is a kind of dance and music from the French Antilles. After this he became a dance teacher. He has his own dance school called DA Dance Studio in Rotterdam.

He is now one of the most talked about persons of the last 2 years because of his statements and views against inequality and censorship and all the measures concerning the so-called health crisis

Arrested & Released Again- in the same week – Apr 2022

Engel on Arrests, Trial & Resistance with Taylor Hudak

source: The Last American Vagabond

UKC A Thompson on the legality of the 2 arrests (English)

source: Geopolitics & Empire



Police Arrest Willem Engel Again (Dutch)

source: Prof. Dolores Cahill

Willem explains the 2 arrests (English)

source: Geopolitics & Empire

Willem Released Again (Dutch)

source: Cafe Weltschmerz

On March 30 he was released from detention.

According to reports, He is banned from posting on social media on penalty of facing 90 additional days in prison. This is a clear attempt to silence free speech.

Willem Released!

source: shortXXvids

On Tuesday, 3/16/2022, Activist and operator of ‘Virus Warheid’ (Virus Truth) Willem Engel was arrested by Dutch police.

Mordechai on the Trial of Willem (Dutch)

source: Geert Maessen

Message from Prison (Dutch)

source: VirusWaarheid

#freewillemengel (Dutch)

source: VirusWaarheid

Jeroen Pols on the arrest of Willem Engel

source: Corona Ausschuss

Ad Nuis – on the arrest of Willem Engel (Dutch)

source: Cafe Weltschmetz

Mordechai Krispijn on visit to Willem Engel in Prison (Dutch)

source: viruswaarheid

Cafe Weltschmetz on the arrest of Willem Engel (Dutch)

source: Cafe Weltschmetz

Who is Willem Engel & Related

Shadraouf interviews Willem Engel regarding Illegal Measures (Dutch)

source: viruswaarheid

The Dutch Angel – Who is Willem Engel (Dutch)

source: viruswaarheid



resistance to oppression, Arrest, Cafe Weltschmertz, Engels, free speech, Holland, Jeroen, Legal Opinion, natural law, Netherlands, New World Order, opinion, patriot, Pols, Right to Resist, treason, Truth, unlawful, Virus, Virus Truth, Virus Waarheid, Willem

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