Talk:David Bardens

Language help welcome

This is an abbreviated version of the corresponding German article. It might need a bit of English revision. The same goes for the tentative translation of the German court's ruling at http://www.positivists.org/r/judgment_measles_made_anonymous.pdf - that should really need a revision by an English native speaker who can also read German legal text. --Olaf Simons (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. That is the German original of the court ruling http://www.positivists.org/r/Urteil_Masern_anonymisiert.pdf --Olaf Simons (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The orphan problem

The article from which the link should come is Vaccine controversies. The present structure is not really open for a section on present controversies. --Olaf Simons (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Lanka is the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.52.39 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are abundant research papers showing the measles virus exists and abundant research papers containing the physical dimensions of said virus; Bardens produced token papers from each abundance. Lanka's criterion was that both be covered in one research paper, something that wasn't going to occur since such work would be carried out by different groups of people and thus published separately. Lanka's challenge appears to be about the measles virus's existence when in fact it is about how scientific research is published. 158.93.6.18 (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Sean[reply]

Bardens Vs Lanka is not neutral and lacks accuracy

I was reading the Bardens Vs Lanka and the information is not right on the development of the trial. It is sad how some people kidnap articles. Cristian ] Yes? 11:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was very specific and detailed, and now we know exactly what to change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]