On September 3, 2024, a court ruled for the first time that the facility-based vaccination requirement during
the coronavirus period was possibly unconstitutional.
A nursing assistant from Lower Saxony has filed a lawsuit against the ban on work imposed by the district of Osnabrück.
The competent administrative court has now suspended the legal proceedings and referred the matter to the Federal
Constitutional Court. Kla.TV (www.kla.tv/30401) reported on this.
Today we have Dr. Sonja Reitz as our guest. You were present at the court proceedings at the Osnabrück Administrative Court.
A very warm welcome! We are delighted to be able to talk to you today about the scope and significance of this court case.
But before we get into the topic, please introduce yourself briefly for the audience.
Yes, I am Sonja Reitz. I am a doctor of general medicine, psychotherapy and naturopathy.
And I am the managing director and spokesperson of the Hippocratic Oath Medical Association.
This is a medical association that has set itself the goal of restoring ethics in medicine, because we can see that in many
cases lobbying and financial orientation have gotten out of hand and patients are often harmed or at least suffer as a result.
So it is important to us that medicine becomes human again and also safer.
Yes, that's a good concern. You have now been involved in this court case.
What did you experience there, and what was special about this court case?
Yes, thank you for mentioning this topic, because I think it's very, very important to understand the full significance of this.
Because there was a trial in which a nursing assistant was banned from entering the premises because she had not been vaccinated.
This was announced in November 2022, and compulsory vaccination in the healthcare system will expire at the end of 2022.
And now it is the case that in these judgments over the last few months, years, it has actually always been decided quite
clearly: Yes, that was just the law and the law was not observed, so it is right to impose penalties and entry bans.
And now the RKI files have become public, where it is clear that the RKI has not acted
scientifically in many places, but on political instructions.
Then, of course, it suddenly becomes clear that the highest court jurisdiction, i.e. the Constitutional Court, in
its ruling - they only relied on the RKI, that they relied on a dependent authority and not on science.
And everything that has happened so far in terms of processes relating to compulsory vaccination
in institutions actually needs to be revisited.
Also, for example, the soldiers' trials , some of which ended with really terrible verdicts.
And now back to Osnabrück.
The judge there saw it that way and said that the RKI files were on the table.
We can't look away now and bury our heads in the sand, we need a proper collection of evidence.
Is the RKI an independent authority or did it act on instructions?
And Professor Schaade, who was questioned there on the witness stand - the questioning lasted over two
hours - confirmed that the company acted on instructions.
He then used a trick and called it the management level when things weren't scientific.
But it was very clear that, in close contact with the Federal Ministry of Health, they were acting on instructions.
This prompted the judge to decide in the end that this process must be suspended for the time being and that the question should
be returned to the Federal Constitutional Court as to whether it was at all lawful to make vaccination compulsory, or
in this case whether it should still apply in November 2022.
So it was a real novelty, so to speak, for someone to take evidence.
And he did it very accurately and expertly.
And that was... that was a glimmer of hope for me that the law would once again prevail in case law and not
the political majority opinion or the political opinion represented by the government.
Whether this is still a majority opinion or not, that is the question.
In any case, in recent months, one has the strong impression that the courts, instead of taking evidence, have actually
only been guided by these laws, although they are obviously - obviously and manifestly - at odds with reality.
All these bans on entering the country and so on, the occupational bans, the dishonorable discharge of
soldiers, were massive encroachments on fundamental rights.
Was anything said about this? That was also an unusual process that had never been seen before in Germany.
The trial in Osnabrück was conducted by the court president.
And he is... he himself is also a very strong expert on the theory of fundamental rights, i.e. the legal
dogmatics on the subject of fundamental rights, and has worked through this very, very clearly.
He said that if you suspend fundamental rights - fundamental rights are rights that each of us has, and we
only give the state authority to do this or that, but fundamental rights must be secured.
And the state may only suspend or restrict fundamental rights if it has really good reasons.
And these good reasons must also be closely monitored to ensure that they really exist.
And did that happen?
He has to ask the question, so to speak: Can I really achieve my goal with what I want to
achieve with the suspension of fundamental rights?
So is it appropriate and is it proportionate? Another question: Or are there milder means?
Yes, and here he then worked out very precisely that, for example, there was no external protection at all through this
vaccination and that a normal throat swab test could have been used to decide much more
reliably whether someone was infectious or not.
This facility-based compulsory vaccination in the healthcare system was made in order to protect vulnerable
groups of people, older people with immune deficiencies or whatever, so that no one carries the infections in.
But if vaccinated people are just as infectious as unvaccinated people, as several studies
have already shown in July 21 and in August...
So in July it was the CDC, that's the American RKI, they had determined that, and that was on July 30th.
And that must have been known, because it made a big splash in the New York Times.
And then in August, as noted in the RKI files on August 24, there was a study from Oxford that said the same
thing, an English study: vaccinated people are just as infectious as unvaccinated people.
And on August 25th - I held this up to my nose because it's actually so amazing - there was a study from
Israel with 2.5 million people, vaccinated people are just as contagious as unvaccinated people.
In this respect, it is completely incomprehensible how, four months later, the RKI does not appear in the Bundestag and say
that vaccination should not be compulsory, because vaccinated people are just as infectious, and if we now allow the
vaccinated to work and not the unvaccinated, then the vaccinated will simply infect all the vulnerable groups.
Yes, they should have said that, but nobody did.
It even became clear at the hearing in the Bundestag that there is no data at all.
Prof. Karagiannidis said there that we don't even know how many Covid-19 patients in
intensive care units are vaccinated and unvaccinated.
There was no data on that. Yes, so it was not at all clear that vaccinated people were protected against severe cases.
It was always just claimed. Yes, and the Bundestag somehow put all that to one side, didn't really pay attention to it.
And that is why, in my view, this law was actually unconstitutional from the outset, because it could not achieve
its purpose, namely the protection of vulnerable groups.
Protection could have been achieved by much milder means, such as regular swab tests to
determine whether someone is infectious or not.
And if someone has a cold, they should have been tested.
And you can also reduce the germ load with milder means, mouth disinfection, etc.
So you would have had the same, if not better, effect with other methods, and you would not have been allowed to restrict people's
right to physical integrity, which is one of the fundamental rights that were restricted here, or the
right to freedom of occupation, freedom to pursue a profession, in the judge's opinion.
The judge also said that this was at the end of 2022 and should have been closely monitored.
Even before it came into force... - he didn't say that now, that's what I'm saying.
In December 2021, the Bundestag passed this law - which actually makes no sense, because the studies were already
on the table six months or a quarter of a year before, the studies that it makes no difference.
Even the WHO wrote in December 2021: No difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
They've given up on the difference there as far as infection is concerned.
Nevertheless, our Bundestag decided at this point to make vaccination compulsory for nurses and for the armed forces,
although it was already clear at that time how dangerous these vaccinations were, because we had an extreme
increase in side effects in the European database EMA.
And we had an extreme increase in deaths, which we can actually see in all statistics from June
2021 and for which there is no other explanation.
There were no PCR-positive deaths in this number.
The mortality rate suddenly rose, and emergency admissions to hospitals increased, for
heart conditions and neurological problems.
You talked about the need for a review. Wouldn't it have been necessary to intervene when
changing the variant from Delta to Omikron?
Yes, I already said it.
So the decision by the Bundestag was actually not justified by anything, because there was no external protection, but also the
effectiveness of the vaccination, which was designed for the Wuhan virus - for example, against a serious illness, which was at
least a little bit given at the beginning, but never for a long time in the way it was promised. But it was at least visible.
That was actually gone with Omikron. And there was no external protection either.
As I said before, even the WHO has stated: Vaccinated people are as contagious as unvaccinated people.
And the Omikron change, that was around January to February, and it's remarkable why this compulsory vaccination
should never have been made compulsory in the first place.
The head of the Medical Association in South Africa said: "We now have the new variant here, it's
contagious, really contagious, but it's not dangerous.
We actually see quite harmless courses, as with colds etc.
We have no increase in death rates. We have no hospitalization problems.
At that moment, there was no longer any need for any vaccination. Including for the other vaccinations.
Then you would have had to say: "Ah, we now have the increased death rate after all.
The vaccination could have something to do with it. Stop! Vaccination off the market! Suspend the approval!
It is made for a completely different variant and has no external protection."
But what is our state doing here? It has allowed this to continue, as if it could not step on the brakes.
And the judge said something very important here: if we are talking about restrictions on fundamental rights and the state
was in a position to suddenly issue completely new decrees and further restrict fundamental rights within three days during the
lockdown phase in 2020, then it can also be in a position to restore fundamental rights and lift these restrictions
within one or two days in the event of new findings.
And there he sees a real - or he made that clear, he did not formulate it that way, but it was very clear in the
whole presentation of evidence that he sees a real legal deficiency in the fact that this was not done.
The fact that a) the vaccination obligation came into force at all - and this happened on March 16 - and that it was carried
through to the end, even though it no longer made any sense.
On the contrary, it is even known that vaccinated people were two to three times more likely to get Omikron because they
became more susceptible to the other virus variants, because their immunity was more likely to be reduced.
Interesting aspect.
The RKI should have noticed all of this and said: There are risk signals, dear government, please don't!
So the government was allowed to run into this. They were left, I would say, uninformed about what we actually know.
And let them decide on a restriction of fundamental rights that is unconstitutional.
And here I see a very, very clear culpability on the part of the RKI and the Minister of Health, who were well informed by the RKI
and also by the Paul Ehrlich Institute, by the licensing institutes, because they knew very well that
there were no studies at all that proved the external protection of these vaccinations.
They already knew that in January 2021.
That was the judge's statement, so to speak, that he took this evidence, so to speak, and he has
now returned it to the Federal Constitutional Court.
Yes. What do you expect from this decision there?
So we actually experienced a serious disappointment from the Federal Constitutional Court in April 22,
when it ruled that this facility-based vaccination requirement was supposedly constitutional.
Anyone who is a bit familiar with medicine and knows that there is no external protection wonders why the
constitutional judge can decide something like this?
Fundamental rights are suspended to protect people, even though there is no protection at all. That contradicts common sense.
That's where I say the law has been bent. If I just give you a layman's opinion.
So I very much hope that Mr. Harbarth will return to the ground of clean jurisprudence and, above all,
protect the constitutional rights of the population.
Which is his job.
That is his mission,
yes. Now it's the case that Mr. Harbarth in particular has attracted attention because he
goes out and in with the powerful in this country.
The Federal Constitutional Court has recently issued very politically friendly rulings.
And the question is, can we as citizens do anything now to influence this decision by the Federal
Constitutional Court? And if so, what could that look like?
So what has proven itself here... - thank you for this question, because it is very important.
Because we don't know whether Mr. Harbarth will now see the error of his ways and somehow do it more thoroughly and sensibly.
And he also sees that there is no external protection. This is disproportionate, there are
milder means, and it doesn't have the same effect.
And that's why it's very important that the people take part in the Monday demonstrations as much as they can.
Self-determination is the theme there. Freedom, peace, self-determination. There are
actually these Monday demonstrations in all cities.
And, on the other hand, to address the local members of the Bundestag, for example, the regional
ones, and say: People, what did you decide back then?
Please make a change of heart! And also a rehabilitation of all people who have been harmed by
this, especially those who have lost their jobs.
Others have lost their livelihoods, others have lost their health and are fighting for recognition.
And even there it is made difficult for them because experts say that if something looks a bit like it could
have been something else, then we would not recognize it.
So there is a gauntlet for the relatives. So talking to the members of parliament is one of my pieces of advice.
And the next point, the third point, which is also very important: If there is a suspicion of an adverse
reaction, then please report it to the Paul Ehrlich Institute!
There is a central Internet reporting office where anyone can report suspected vaccination side effects, so you don't have to
go to the doctor, who may be reluctant to do it himself because he has a liability risk, to
report the side effects to the Paul Ehrlich Institute.
And so you don't have to prove that this is a side effect, but rather the suspicion.
In other words, if there is a temporal connection, there will be talks within three months.
But if it's a serious illness, such as cancer, they take a little longer.
You can also say after six months or twelve months that I see a vaccination connection here, I suspect it.
If masses of people do this, at some point even the Paul Ehrlich Institute will no longer
be able to claim that we can't see anything.
We currently have a situation where only one to six percent of all side effects are reported at all.
And that of course gives a completely distorted picture.
And now imagine that Mr. Harbarth has already referred to the RKI when he now says that I am only referring to the Paul Ehrlich
Institute - no matter how deficient the reports are there, how deficient the management is there, because there are only eleven
people who are responsible for millions of vaccine doses for millions of vaccine
injuries, eleven people have not been increased!
We've increased the number of vaccination centers everywhere, we've created vaccination centers, we've squandered I don't know
how many billions, squandered them completely unnecessarily.
But drug monitoring in Germany has been left at this level, even though we have received a highly experimental, genetically
modifying and also completely unresearched gene therapy as a vaccination, which we never had before, where the
studies were also carried out with a completely different substance than was then vaccinated in the end.
Very few people know that. Yes, it's a completely different production process with more impurities in it.
So I just wanted to say, so that Mr. Harbarth cannot rely on the Paul Ehrlich Institute - nothing has been reported
there, there is nothing - it is important that everyone who suspects a vaccination side effect reports there.
This can be done electronically. But you can also do it on paper and send it there.
So there are download forms that you can download.
If you are not able to do this yourself, you can certainly ask a friend or a son or daughter to make it
technically possible, because there are so many side effects.
It's all the mental side effects, such as exhaustion or impaired thinking, memory loss.
People then no longer have the drive, they become depressed and no longer dare to go outside, or think it's old age.
But it is so often that vaccination causes dementia, vaccination causes deterioration, vaccination causes illness... - or the
frequent infections or the embolisms, the thromboses, all the heart diseases, autoimmune
diseases, the cancers, all that can have a connection.
I mean, there has been a lot of talk about the fact that this vaccination can cause a
real, shall I say, flood of different syndromes.
And it is just as absurd that the Paul Ehrlich Institute, for example, has announced that they cannot detect a vaccination
syndrome because it is not a uniform clinical picture.
That's how absurdly our drug monitoring works. I said that with a slightly cynical disdain.
That's the way it is, I don't have any respect for it anymore, so.
It is all the more important that citizens themselves become active, that they make these entries.
We can only recommend that you also enter the data you enter there on the "Vetopedia.org" page.
This is a portal that is independent of government and industry, so that you have a backup in case the Paul
Ehrlich Institute claims again that the data is not sufficient.
Yes, if you have not heard back within four weeks.
So if you make such a claim, you should actually receive a letter within three, four, five, six weeks.
We have been notified of the damage and we will contact you again at some point.
So an incoming message like that, and the Paul Ehrlich Institute with its eleven people doesn't even get around to doing it.
That's why you should document it, as you have already said, that you have proof yourself.
And what is also very important, which many people may not know, is that if you have been vaccinated in 2021 and then something
happens, you have vaccine damage: Susceptibility to infections, shingles or an autoimmune disease or joint pain
all of a sudden, migraines, which you didn't have before, or you've lost a child, for example.
There is far too little talk about the fertility disorder that this causes, which can become
time-barred at the end of 2024 if it occurred in 2021. .
So if the symptom has occurred in 2021, then now, we are already well into the year, it is
necessary to call in a lawyer to file a lawsuit.
So don't just write a nice letter, but the complaint must be in the box before 31.12.24.
And then we hope that legal expenses insurers will also provide support.
Yes, thank you for that assessment. Many people are currently taking the legal route.
Prof. Bhakdi has recommended that vaccinators should also be held accountable because they
have breached their duty to provide information.
Ralf Ludwig has filed 600 criminal complaints against those responsible for the corona crisis, demanding that their decisions
be reviewed, and I believe that these suspicious cases, which are initially filed, will also help to build up a
certain amount of pressure to ensure that those responsible comply with the applicable law.
We are through with that today. Thank you very much for your assessment of this court case, and we hope
that the law will continue to be helped to break through.
Thank you very much.