There has been a lot of untruths on this thread, particularly by one individual, about the Lanka court case. I have been through the court document in detail so you don’t have to and these were the court’s findings …….
Lanka offered 100,000euros for someone to prove that the measles virus exists and it’s diameter.
The court papers state Lankas parameters as ……
3. “The prize money is paid out when a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, its diameter is determined.
4. The prize money will not be paid out if the determination of the diameter of the measles virus only involves models or drawings such as ... ... "
Lanka lost his case in the German courts and was ordered to pay out the money to the student doctor who claimed the prize.
Lanka appealed to a German higher court who decided that he didn’t have to pay due to the following legal technicalities ……
47 “Insofar as the defendant's (Lanka) appeal is admissible, it is also justified, since the amount awarded could only have been earned if the circumstances to be proven had all been demonstrated in a self-contained work.” (In other words although the 6 scientific papers submitted by the student doctor proved to the court and the experts that the measles virus existed and it’s diameter known, Lanka had asked for “a scientific publication” [a] meaning just one and NOT six).
81 “After the clear and unambiguous wording, a publication is to be submitted in which the evidence is to be fulfilled in accordance with these requirements.”
87 “Although it may meet the need of the plaintiff and the person providing evidence to set the hurdles for the evidence, this is ultimately a matter for the claimant, who alone determines what he is willing to pay a reward for. In this sense, it can also be seen by the third party that the sponsor does not want to make it easier for the possible applicants for the prize money to provide the proof that a measles virus exists, which they do not want anyway.” (In other words the court is accusing Lanka of deliberately asking for one scientific paper knowing that the proof of viruses existing is in a different scientific paper to the diameter of the virus. The court accused him of semantics to deliberately make it difficult for anyone to claim the prize).
88 “The fact that the defendant (Lanka) did not raise the objection immediately after the publications were presented that six publications were presented and not just one does not contradict this. The defendant (Lanka) immediately objected that none of the submitted work was suitable to provide evidence. Only when the expert had shown his result that the evidence could be regarded as having been obtained when all publications were viewed together did it become necessary to object that in any case the evidence had not been produced by a single piece of work.” (In other words the expert agreed that it had been proved that the measles virus existed).
103 (5-7) “Evidence of measles virus existence, diameter and non-use of models”. (The following points are the courts findings on the existence and diameter of the measles virus).
104 “The assessment of the evidence by the regional court to the effect that the expert opinion obtained has proven that the publications submitted by the plaintiff in their entirety provide evidence of the existence and the pathogenicity of the measles virus and that the determination of the diameter in the form requested by the defendant (Lanka) was successful not objectionable in the result.”
107 “The regional court assessed the information provided by the expert, whose specialist knowledge cannot be questioned, in detail, comprehensibly and convincingly (see in particular p. 20 et seq. Of the judgment under 2.). It is not evident that laws of thought were violated or that other errors were made.”
117 “In the end, the defendant (Lanka) cannot be successful because it was allegedly not cleared up whether ribosomes were found inside the measles virus at the RKI and whether this would rule out the virus. The expert stated in this regard (protocol p. 9, p. 147 d. A.) that the measles virus did not contain any ribosomes and that such a report would be astonishing and would attract the greatest attention, although the concept of the virus would, of course, not necessarily be “ruined” would be thrown ”. The conceptual understanding of the virus is in fact in flux. The mere presence of ribosomes therefore does not necessarily stand in the way of the existence of a virus”.
118 “Insofar as the diameter of the measles virus was allegedly stated by the RKI to be 120 - 400 nm (see page 23 of the A.), this does not conflict with the assessment of the evidence by the regional court. This size range is within the range of 50 to 1,000 nm that the regional court has identified as scientifically plausible, based on the expert opinion. It cannot therefore be recognized that the two measured values are mutually exclusive.”
122 “As a result, the appeal, insofar as it is admissible, was successful because the claimant did not meet the criterion of the claim to prove the existence of the measles virus through “a scientific publication”. As a result, the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-trial legal fees.” (In other words this final statement confirms that the court found in Lanka’s favour only because the claimant submitted 6 scientific papers which categorically showed that the measles virus exists and it’s diameter instead of one scientific paper).