German judges in court cases did not rule on whether measles virus exists

The courts ruled on a civil dispute between two individuals

(Reuters) - Judges presiding over a German court case between 2013 and 2016 involving the measles virus settled a civil dispute about a promised payment and did not rule on the existence of the virus itself, contrary to social media posts falsely claiming the courts decided the virus does not exist.

One Facebook user (here) uploaded a screenshot of a 2020 blog article (here) with the headline: “German court: ‘No Proof That Measles Virus Exists’.”

Similar posts sharing the headline of a separate, 2017 blog article, “Biologist Proves Measles Isn’t A Virus, Wins Supreme Court Case Against Doctor” (here) can be seen (here) and (here).

However, judges presiding over the case and subsequent appeals to which the articles refer did not rule on the existence of the measles virus, and expressly said this in court. The case, which stretched over three years, was a civil dispute between two men, who had opposing views on the existence of the virus, over a payment one said the other owed to him.

TIMELINE OF CASES

On Nov. 24, 2011, German biologist Stefan Lanka posted a notice online saying he would reward anyone who submitted a scientific publication proving the existence and size of the measles virus with €100,000.

Lanka had previously said publicly that the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS did not exist (here). 

Dr. David Bardens, a medical student, responded to Lanka’s measles virus challenge on Jan. 31, 2012. He submitted six studies (see citations in clause 21 here) which, Bardens said, provided Lanka with proof that the measles virus exists, and of its size. However, in a follow-up letter on March 6, Lanka said the studies did not meet his threshold for proof and that he would not pay Bardens the prize money. Bardens then took Lanka to court.

Ravensburg Regional Court ruled in Bardens’ favour on March 12, 2015, and told Lanka he needed to pay Bardens the €100,000 reward money (here, local report here).

Lanka appealed the decision, and on Feb. 16, 2016, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court overturned the Ravensburg court’s ruling (here), saying that in a strictly legal sense, the six studies submitted by Bardens fell short of Lanka’s criteria for proving the measles virus exists (here), according to a 2016 article in Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung (DAZ), an independent pharmaceutical journal.

The three judges did not question the existence of the virus, the DAZ article adds. But the court considered the reward a promise, not a bet or prize draw, and therefore Lanka was entitled to determine the rules and the threshold for the criteria being met, which included his being free to not accept the studies offered by Bardens.

In the higher court’s ruling (here), the judge noted that in the lower court, “it was proven that the publications submitted by the plaintiff (Bardens) in their entirety provided evidence of the existence and causative properties of the measles virus and that the determination of the diameter in the form requested by the defendant was successful (and) the result is not objectionable” (clause 104).

But the higher court also noted that one of Lanka’s criteria, that the proof be contained in a single scientific paper, rather than multiple papers, had not been met by Bardens (clause 122).

The court further acknowledged (clause 87) that it was up to Lanka to decide what he was willing to pay for: “…this is ultimately a matter for the awarding party, who alone determines what he is willing to pay a reward for.” However, in the same clause, the court suggested that Lanka did not really want proof of the existence of the virus: “…the awarding party does not want to make it easier for potential applicants for the prize money to provide proof that a measles virus exists, which they do not want anyway.”

“You could have submitted 600 (studies), he would not have accepted any," Judge Oleschkewitz said to Bardens in court, according to local reports (here, here and here).

Judge Oleschkewitz also said the decision says nothing about the existence or non-existence of the measles virus: "It's a purely legal decision" which only addressed the wording of the claim (here, here and here).

Bardens considered taking the case to the Federal Court of Justice, the highest court of civil and criminal jurisdiction in Germany (here). However, the federal court rejected his appeal without further justification in December 2016 (here).

DAZ wrote in 2016: “The law only permits an appeal if the case is of fundamental importance or if the development of the law or the safeguarding of uniform case law requires a decision by the appeals court. The BGH (Federal Court of Justice) obviously did not consider that to be the case here. According to the press spokeswoman of the BGH, ‘no reasoned decision’ was issued.” (here)

DAZ provided a thorough timeline of the above events in a 2017 article (here).

The case has also been subject to a fact-check by another outlet (here).

VERDICT

False. The courts ruled on a civil dispute between two individuals. They did not rule on the existence or non-existence of the measles virus.