BERLIN: False claims circulating on social media suggest that German courts ruled on the non-existence of the measles virus during a civil dispute between 2013 and 2016. However, these claims are misleading, as the judges presiding over the case did not make any rulings regarding the existence of the virus.
The case, which spanned over three years, centered around a payment dispute between two individuals who held opposing views on the measles virus.
The misinformation originated from Facebook posts featuring screenshots of blog articles, one dated 2020 and the other from 2017. The articles claimed that a German court had determined that there was no proof of the measles virus. However, these articles inaccurately represented the court proceedings.
Dispute over existence of measles virus
The dispute began in November 2011 when German biologist Stefan Lanka offered a monetary reward to anyone who could provide scientific evidence of the existence and size of the measles virus.
In response, medical student Dr. David Bardens submitted six studies as proof, but Lanka argued that they did not meet his criteria and refused to pay the reward. Bardens subsequently took Lanka to court.
In March 2015, the Ravensburg Regional Court ruled in Bardens’ favor, ordering Lanka to pay the promised reward. However, Lanka appealed the decision, and in February 2016, the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court overturned the ruling.
The higher court emphasized that it did not question the existence of the virus but considered Lanka’s reward offer as a promise rather than a bet or prize draw. Therefore, Lanka had the right to set the criteria for accepting the studies submitted by Bardens.
The higher court acknowledged that Bardens’ studies provided evidence of the measles virus’s existence and causative properties.
However, they did not fulfill Lanka’s requirement that the proof be contained within a single scientific paper. The court’s ruling focused on the wording of the claim and did not address the existence or non-existence of the virus.
It is important to note that the case was a civil dispute between two individuals, and the courts did not rule on the existence or non-existence of the measles virus.
The false claims circulating on social media misinterpret the court proceedings and should not be considered accurate.
