Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on telegram
Share on whatsapp

56 German doctors cite 7 excellent arguments against mandatory vaccination

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on telegram
Share on email
Share on print

In the US, this cannot happen because any doctors who speak against the false narrative would be severely criticized, de-platformed, and punished.

By Steve Kirsch

Here’s what a group of 56 German doctors wrote to the German Parliament (use Google Translate to read it in English).

These doctors are very smart and their arguments are excellent. All their arguments are based on science and make perfect sense. They are consistent with the positions of thousands of scientists in Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Scandinavia, Great Britain and the United States.

But sadly they will be ignored.

In the US, we can’t prepare such a document. It is not permitted.

From The Defenestration of Dr. Robert Malone:

In the United States, one must not question the efficacy of masks, vaccines for kids, the logic (or lack thereof) of lockdowns, or the unconstitutional nature of vaccine mandates. What about the little matter of vaccine breakthrough deaths? Don’t ask any questions.

But wait, if science can’t be questioned, doesn’t this make it propaganda? Hush now. Don’t you love America? Don’t you want people to live, rather than die? Then shut up and get the vaccine, then the booster shot, then the booster-booster shot. We, the arbiters of truth, know what’s best for you. Somewhat ironically, these self-appointed arbiters of truth spout no shortage of lies.

Is it any surprise, then, that more and more Americans continue to lose faith in the mainstream media and the government?

This is not about what the science says. It never was.

This is all about blind belief and trust in the CDC, FDA, and NIH.

Congress, mainstream media, and the medical establishment all follow whatever crap comes out of the CDC. If the CDC says it is safe, it is safe. Period. End of story. If you disagree, you’re wrong and they’ll take away your medical license.

Thousands of scientists can point out the vaccines aren’t safe and that mandates are nonsensical, have tons of evidence, and it won’t matter, they will be ignored.

And since nobody is allowed to challenge the three letter agencies (since they duck hard questions), change never happens.

And nobody in Congress is asking the hard questions of the CDC that they should be asking. Because everyone (except for Senators Johnson and Paul and Congressmen Brooks and Massie) trusts the agencies.

Trust in the agencies cannot be broken no matter what the science says or how many doctors oppose the policies.

Google Translate of the Article

The 7 arguments

Overcoming the split : seven scientific arguments
against compulsory vaccination and in favor of an open discourse

The corona pandemic has demanded a high human toll and great efforts in all areas of social life over the past two years. In quick succession, new ordinances and laws were passed, which large parts of the population responsibly supported. In the past few months, the political path has been increasingly geared towards vaccination of the entire population, which is mostly viewed as no alternative. This is currently culminating in the discussion of introducing a statutory vaccination requirement – both general and group-specific. The existing sanctions against “unvaccinated people” (and therefore also those whose vaccination certificate has expired) are to be expanded even further.

It is premature to pass a resolution on a statutory vaccination requirement. Because fundamental questions about the new vaccines have not been adequately clarified and are controversial in research. This includes in particular the duration and strength of the vaccination protection as well as the type, frequency and severity of the side effects. No such law should be based on controversial research questions.

The undersigned therefore take the position that a general or group-specific vaccination obligation against SARS-CoV2 is not justifiable in the current situation due to medical, legal, philosophical and also ethical and religious arguments. Therefore, a decision for or against the COVID19 vaccination must be made individually.

The rationale for our position is summarized in seven arguments. They are consistent with the positions of thousands of scientists in Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Scandinavia, Great Britain and the United States.

1st argument: The pandemic with SARS-CoV2 will not be ended by vaccination

One goal of the general compulsory vaccination is to create a population immunized against SARS-CoV2. We consider it questionable whether this goal can actually be achieved with the vaccines available, which are still conditionally approved in the EU.

1.) The immunization by the current vaccines is much weaker and shorter lasting than expected and promised. At most, there is self-protection against severe courses and that only for a few months.

2.) These vaccines do not produce ‘sterile’ immunity. Despite vaccination, infections and the transmission of viruses are possible at any time. The extent and duration of the external protection are unknown.

3.) New virus variants bypass vaccination protection more and more successfully. The development and vaccination of a vaccine adapted to new virus variants will, according to the current state of affairs, take longer than the average time interval between the appearance of more successful variants. Consequently, this reactive vaccine adaptation cannot produce a uniformly immunized population.

4.) The evolutionary logic of the virus mutation is that of the new variants, those who best bypass the protection of the existing vaccines will be most successful. Full vaccination of the population – with vaccination that does not produce sterile immunity – can increase selection pressure on the virus and therefore even be counterproductive.

2nd argument: The risk potential of the vaccines is too high

Since the start of the vaccination campaign, no systematic research – including the long-term – risk potential of the novel vaccines has taken place. For the gene-based COVID19 vaccines, it is particularly important that the vaccines and their modes of action are fundamentally new and have not been researched in long-term studies. Vaccine damage could occur in a different way than experience with conventional vaccines suggests.

1.) Even the suspected cases of side effects from COVID19 vaccination recorded by the Paul Ehrlich Institute are worrying in relation to reports on other vaccines. Systematic research into the side effects and risk factors of vaccinations is therefore urgently required.

2.) In addition, current research shows warning signs of a considerable risk potential of these vaccines:

a) In 2021, and especially in the last few months, there was a significant increase in excess mortality, which has parallels to vaccination: if the number of vaccinations increases, excess mortality also increases; if the number of vaccinations decreases, excess mortality also decreases. This pattern can be found in various countries and could possibly be an indication of previously overlooked dramatic side effects (Appendix 1).

b) The unusually strong increase in cardiovascular and neurological diseases since the start of the vaccination campaign also shows parallels to the vaccination curves (Appendix 2).

c) There are indications that the indicators of the risk of infarction that can be detected in the blood increase significantly after vaccination.

d) The effect of the spike proteins on the human cell metabolism is largely not understood. There is serious evidence that it can be a cause of undesirable side effects.

e) Research results indicate that these side effects can be individual and deviate from the previously known patterns.

f) Current findings on the Omikron variant indicate that people vaccinated against an earlier variant are more susceptible to this new variant than non-vaccinated people.

3rd argument: The risk potential of multiple administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations has not been adequately researched

The vaccination requirement will presumably provide for continued booster vaccinations, as vaccination protection decreases rapidly and new virus variants emerge. The multiple vaccination (more than two) is an ongoing experiment on the population to accumulate vaccination risks. Then:

1.) So far, no data has been collected in the manufacturer’s approval studies.

2.) Also in connection with the currently running booster campaigns, hardly any comprehensive analyzes on the security of the procedure have been published.

4th argument: The general compulsory vaccination with the currently conditionally approved COVID19 vaccines violates constitutional law

The guarantee of human dignity in Article 1 of the Basic Law is the basis of the Basic Law: As an end-to-end being, the human being is the foundation and goal of law. State measures must never treat it as a mere means to an end (be it for the common good). The dignity of the individual subject cannot be weighed against other fundamental rights; it is rather absolute. An obligation to vaccinate interfered with the protection of the right to self-determination, guaranteed by the guarantee of human dignity, with regard to medical interventions in the physical and mental integrity and in the physical integrity of the person concerned, which is protected by Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law. Furthermore, an impairment of the freedom of belief and conscience according to Art. 4 GG is possible.

1.) With regard to the encroachment on Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, the constitutionality of an obligation to vaccinate is questionable because of the questionable purpose and lack of suitability , necessity and appropriateness .

a) In this respect, the choice of a legitimate purpose is unclear . The main considerations are: herd immunity, interruption of chains of infection, avoidance of deaths and severe courses (and the associated relief for the health system), end of the pandemic.

b) The suitability of a general vaccination requirement is clearly denied with regard to the first two purposes mentioned under a). With a view to avoiding severe courses, it should be pointed out that the conditionally approved vaccines lose their effect after a very short period of time (3 to 6 months) and, in any case, are not suitable for the long term. Furthermore, their effectiveness for new virus mutations cannot be assumed (cf. 1st argument under 3.). For the same reasons, a general compulsory vaccination is also unsuitable for ending the pandemic.

c) The necessity would only be answered in the affirmative if there were no more lenient means of achieving the goals that would be equally suitable. Since the suitability is questionable, considerations are at best hypothetical: Such considerations would, for example, concern the protection of vulnerable groups, the improvement of the health system or the (if possible) prompt adaptation of the vaccines. In the design of the general vaccination obligation, less drastic variants should also be considered: for example, a wide exemption for medical indications even in the case of existing medical uncertainties (autoimmune diseases, dispositions for vaccine damage – previous allergies or damage to vaccinations, known heart diseases, etc.), which an individual Enable doctor-patient weighing.

d) Adequacyin the narrower sense presupposes that when weighing up the impaired and the protected interests, there is a clear predominance of the protection of the general public intended by the mandatory vaccination. That is not the case here. Because the risk ratio between the risk of a severe course or death from COVID and the risk of severe or fatal side effects from the vaccination is to the disadvantage of the vaccination for large groups of people. According to serious scientists, the risk of younger adults is higher in the case of vaccination. In addition, there is a demonstrably considerable risk potential of the new and only conditionally approved vaccines, which is not yet sufficiently well known (cf. 2nd argument). That means,

2.) A mandatory vaccination subject to a fine collides with Art. 1 GG. This protectspeople from being reified – treated as a mere object. Due to the obligation to vaccinate, he would be forced to tolerate an irreversible intervention in his body through a medical treatment that was previously only conditionally approved, i.e. a medical treatment complex that has not yet been adequately researched. This would also be done solely for the sake of the other members of society or for the purpose of fighting pandemics for society as a whole or – depending on the target – to maintain medical treatment resources. To what extent these purposes can actually be achieved through compulsory vaccination is unclear. What is constitutionally clear, however, is that the use of the individual is inadmissible even if if it can protect the well-being and even the lives of many others with a probability bordering on certainty. Unvaccinated people in their sheer existence would be made illegal by a general obligation to vaccinate and criminalized by the threat of sanctions.

3.) With regard to Article 4 of the Basic Law, it should be borne in mind that individuals are free to refuse medical interventions for ideological or religious reasons in the area of ​​their freedom of belief and conscience.

5th argument: The overload of the hospitals by COVID19 sufferers is not clearly proven by the statistical data

The general compulsory vaccination is justified, among other things, by relieving the burden on hospitals and in particular on intensive care units. There are also many unanswered questions in this context.

1.) Even after almost two years of pandemic, there are no reliable findings as to what proportion of the reported COVID19 patients are being treated in hospitals for a COVID19 disease and what proportion is in the hospital for another cause.

2.) Insufficient statistical information is available on the vaccination status, age distribution and the presence of previous illnesses of the actual COVID19 patients.

3.) Hospitals are subject to economic constraints and political incentives when providing treatment capacities for COVID-19. Ongoing debates about the decreasing number of beds registered as “operable” under changing framework conditions lead to the question: Can the burden on this system not be relieved through appropriate and transparent administrative and financial support?

6th argument: Measures other than vaccination have not been exhausted

The one-sided propagation of the compulsory vaccination continues the neglect of other effective measures against the pandemic that has already been practiced in the past two years, such as the failure to improve the working conditions of nurses and doctors, the maintenance or replenishment of intensive care bed capacity, and the development and use of therapies and Medication.

7th argument: The COVID19 vaccination obligation accelerates social conflicts

The compulsory vaccination is based on the assumption that society can return to normal with it. The opposite is the case: society is being divided more deeply. Citizens who consciously decide against vaccination for medical, ideological, religious or other reasons are marginalized and possibly even prosecuted. Public discourse creates artificial worlds in which critical voices can hardly be heard. Language itself is also pushed into the role of a vicarious agent for controversial political goals. Simplifying definitions (“vaccinated” – “unvaccinated”) promote polarization in our society; Euphemistic abbreviations such as “2-G” disguise the fact that a (large) minority is systematically, publicly and rigidly excluded from social life.

As a result of the growing politicization, there is also an interdisciplinary ideological standardization in academic research as “science”. This represents a disregard for the plural, free discourse on the urgently needed gain in knowledge about the benefits and risks of vaccination.

The confidence of many citizens in the state could be fundamentally shaken by strengthening this course. The resulting conflicts affect the rule of law and democracy.

The seven arguments put forward are intended to raise questions, the clarification of which should be a prerequisite for a decision regarding compulsory vaccination against Covid-19.

The arguments are not directed against a specific content position. Rather, they are arguments in favor of the fact that in the current situation it is important to develop a common approach to questions in science that allows a currently non-existent solid basis to be found for health and mental distress with a view to all dimensions of the crisis to alleviate each other.

Out of this spirit of freedom of science and human dignity, we ask that joint efforts be made to overcome the current situation with its multiple suffering and the division of our society and to heal its scars permanently.


Attachment 1:

a) Germany: Course of excess mortality (Euromomo) and course of the three vaccinations per week:

b) Country comparison: Course of excess mortality and course of booster vaccinations per week in Germany, Israel, Austria and Switzerland:

• © Graphics: Christof Kuhbandner
• Euromomo excess mortality:
• Number of vaccinations: /Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Daten/Impfquotenmonitoring.xlsx
• Country comparison: Our World in Data (booster vaccinations: ; excess mortality: https: // ourworldindata. org / excess-mortality-covid )

Appendix 2:

• Reasons for presentation: RKI emergency room situation report from October 27th, 2021
• Number of vaccinations:

Die Autorengruppe

Prof. Dr. Jessica Agarwal
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Kai Ambos
Prof. Kerstin Behnke
Prof. Dr. Andreas Brenner (CH)
Prof. Dr. Klaus Buchenau
Dr. phil. Matthias Burchardt
Prof. Dr. med. Paul Cullen
Prof. Dr. Viktoria Däschlein-Gessner
Assoc.-Prof. Dr. theol. Jan Dochhorn
Prof. Dr. Ole Döring
Prof. Dr. Gerald Dyker
Jun.-Prof. Dr. Alexandra Eberhardt
Prof. Dr. Michael Esfeld (CH)
Dr. Matthias Fechner
Prof. Dr. Ursula Frost
Prof. Dr. Katrin Gierhake
Prof. Dr. Ulrike Guérot
Prof. Dr. Lothar Harzheim
Prof. Dr. Saskia Hekker
Prof. Dr. med. Sven Hildebrandt
Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg
Dr. Agnes Imhof
Dr. René Kegelmann
Prof. Dr. Martin Kirschner
Dr. Sandra Kostner
Prof. Dr. Boris Kotchoubey
Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner
PD Dr. Axel Bernd Kunze

Prof. Dr. Salvatore Lavecchia
Dr. Christian Lehmann
Dr. h. c. theol. Christian Lehnert
PD Dr. phil. Stefan Luft
Prof. Dr. Jörg Matysik
Dr. Christian Mézes
Prof. Dr. Klaus Morawetz
Prof. Dr. Gerd Morgenthaler
Dr. Henning Nörenberg
Prof. Dr. Gabriele Peters
Dr. med. Steffen Rabe
Prof. Dr. Markus Riedenauer
Prof. Dr. Günter Roth
Prof. em. Dr. Stephan Rist (CH)
Prof. Dr. Steffen Roth
Dr. med. Christian Schellenberg
Prof. Dr. Andreas Schnepf
Prof. Dr. Wolfram Schüffel
Prof. Prof. Dr. med. Klaus-Martin Schulte, FRCS, FRACS
Dr. Jens Schwachtje
Prof. Dr. Harald Schwaetzer
Prof. Dr. Henrieke Stahl
Prof. Dr. Anke Steppuhn
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Stölzle (CH)
Prof. Dr. Tobias Unruh
Prof. Dr. Christin Werner
Prof. Dr. Martin Winkler (CH)
Prof. Dr. Christina Zenk

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x

Get in Touch!

Purpose of your Contact
Where can i reach you?
What would you like to discuss?