I really stopped believing people in general and shifted it towards establishing probabilities.
Lanka's input then becomes merely another puzzle piece for a cluster of related inquiries that support and sometimes contradict each other. For example, studying the history of the "AIDS" virus will throw additional light on Lanka's claims here, even though it is a different topic.

In the end I always allow myself the luxury of determining my view by myself, and to regularly update it when new information comes in. His competition's parameters are so specifically defined that it really isn't a matter of believing, but to simply acknowledge when reading the papers that a real objectively defined set of observations to prove the virus theory for measles are missing.

It doesn't mean that Lanka is right, but it is rather fascinating how actual proofs for these "core pillars" of the measles 'myth' remain elusive, despite their omnipresent adapation into our way of life.

Unrecognized assumptions anywhere that lack proof where there should by so much proof of isolation of the virus that the question should never have come up or remained up for this long.

The reason that it's still not answered does raise concerns about how certain these notions of pathogens are in actuality. Specifically because other cultures do not share our view on what a disease is or why people get sick.

Modern medicine works on similar assumptions as modern cosmology, namely an assumed relationship of causality and metaphysics of fundamental separation into bits and peices through physicality. Once that "certainty" starts to break many other ramifications do as well.

Anyways, blablabla. ahaha. What do I know? No idea what is true ;) But exploring these avenues gives us some new horizon - after all when's the last time you have talked to someone who claims that pathogenic viruses don't exist? Lol. I have never <3

Thanks for your thoughts my friend