On November 15, 2025, the MWGFD held a press symposium near Passau, directly on the beautiful Danube, on
the topic of "Measles Protection Act under scrutiny".
According to the measles protection law working group, consisting of doctors, scientists and lawyers, the law unconstitutionally
interferes with physical integrity and parental rights.
They demand its immediate repeal. Kla.TV was there live and supports the cause by broadcasting the
individual presentations, which are well worth watching.
Below the program you will find informative flyers on the topic and ways in which you too can support this cause.
See below the article by Prof. Dr. Paul Cullen on 'Medical and social considerations on compulsory measles vaccination'.
The next speaker is live here on site, our friend Professor Dr. Paul Cullen. He is a doctor and publicist, born in Ireland.
He studied human medicine at University College Dublin, followed by a second degree in biochemistry with a
focus on molecular biology at King's College London.
He is a specialist in internal medicine with an additional qualification in infectiology, a
specialist in laboratory medicine and a clinical chemist.
He runs a large medical laboratory in Münster and also teaches laboratory medicine at the university there.
In addition to 250 scientific publications, he is also the author of several textbooks.
He is particularly interested in ethical issues in medicine and biotechnology, which is why he has given his lecture, which we
can now look forward to, the title: "Medical ethics and social considerations on compulsory
measles vaccination". Paul, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Ronny, and thank you for allowing me to participate in this symposium today.
So, my presentation is not really about compulsory measles vaccination, not even about vaccinations per se.
It's about what we can put up with, what we have to put up with as patients and what we don't have to put up with.
And it is really about the foundations of such ethical considerations and their significance in society.
And let's start with the relationship between doctor and patient.
There is no relationship in our society between strangers that is more intimate than the relationship between doctor and patient.
The doctor finds out things that often not even the patient's wife knows.
And he has to experience it, because only then will he be able to provide the right treatment at all.
And it requires an absolute relationship of trust, which is not possible with anyone else, not with the
lawyer, not with the tax consultant, not anywhere else.
And this relationship is then justified on the other side, where the patient must assume that the doctor is acting in a fiduciary
capacity on their behalf, and in their personal interests.
And that is the basis, so to speak, of the whole process, this special relationship of trust between doctor and patient.
And for this reason, especially after the Second World War... - of course, there were many misconduct in medicine
during the Second World War, in Germany, but also in Japan.
And because of these transgressions, certain principles that have always existed have been codified.
And I have picked out three that, for me at least, form the basis, the ethical foundation of modern medicine.
The first principle is the principle of the right to physical integrity.
So they say, my body, my choice. That's actually the case, of course.
The patient has unconditional sovereignty over his or her own body and physical integrity.
As a medical student, I learned that it's not even allowed to comb a patient's hair if they don't want it.
And certainly not to inject anything under the skin, as Professor Bhakdi said.
And that is a very, very important principle: we have sovereignty over our own bodies!
The second principle, and that is the right... - from the unspeakable studies, some of which were
conducted in World War II... but not only, also in America.
There was a very famous experiment, the Tuskegee experiment, where black people were infected with syphilis without their knowledge
and were not treated properly to see the natural progression.
The principle of informed consent arose from all these failures - and it was not
voluntary, but people learned from their mistakes.
What does informed consent mean? Informed consent, if you are aware of it, is a direct,
personal relationship between doctor and patient.
The doctor must inform the patient verbally about the benefits, risks and side effects.
He can then give him something in writing.
But the decisive factor is this verbal explanation, where the patient also has the opportunity to ask questions
and actually, if you read the German law, also has time to consider whether he wants this or not.
And then we come to the third, and this is a very old principle that already existed in ancient times, for example
in Hippocratic medicine. And that is the core principle:
First do no harm - "Primum nihil nocere" is the Latin phrase. What does that mean? It is often misunderstood.
For example, with Covid, it was said: we have to vaccinate the entire population, then no
harm will be done. No, that's not what it means.
What it means is that for the individual patient in front of you, the doctor has to be sure that
this treatment will do them more good than harm.
And if you are not sure that this is not the case, then you should not give a treatment, even if
you have good reason to think it might do some good.
That is what this principle is called, and it has been somewhat forgotten.
The Romans had a saying: The well-being of the patient is the supreme law - "salus aegroti suprema lex" in Latin.
This means that the focus is on the individual patient, not on society, not on the community.
This is a personal relationship based on trust, as we have just heard.
And, of course, everything I have said applies to an even greater extent if the patient is incapable of
giving consent, especially when children are involved.
And the measles vaccination is, of course, about children.
And that, if we now ... The problem we have now, this very, very intimate, very fragile relationship between doctor and patient,
and now the state comes along and intervenes, so to speak.
And that's not just a hypothetical consideration.
Many of you here will have heard that on October 8 of this year, the Federal Court of Justice issued a ruling exempting
vaccinators from liability in the coronavirus era if vaccination damage occurs, stating that it
is not the doctor who is liable but the state.
And that means - you have to think a bit about what that means.
Doctors - and this is a very important principle that is upheld by all medical associations.
This is the principle of therapeutic freedom.
This means that if the patient has this trust, and if the doctor works in trust for the patient, then he or she must be
able to decide to apply the therapy that he or she naturally considers to be right, this therapeutic freedom.
But freedom of therapy, like any kind of freedom, presupposes liability.
No freedom without liability for my decisions.
But if I have no liability, then conversely I automatically have no freedom of therapy.
In other words, in this new world, the therapeutic relationship that I have tried to outline is no longer between
doctor and patient, but suddenly between doctor and state - in other words, between authority and subject.
So it's a completely different relationship. The trust is then gone, and the basis of trust, the
foundation of the doctor-patient relationship, is gone.
This has, I will conclude, four conclusions.
In my opinion at least, compulsory measles vaccination is essentially about socio-political and ethical issues that could
not be more fundamental. These are very important questions.
The first question is: Who controls our bodies and the bodies of our children?
Do we decide or does the state decide? The second point is: to whom is the doctor obliged?
Is the doctor obliged to his patients, as he should be, or is he obliged to the state? That is a very fundamental question.
Thirdly, if the doctor is then the extended arm of the state, where is the trust?
And where does that leave the doctor-patient relationship?
Should we even consider whether the patient has the right to refuse to give evidence to the doctor or other public servants?
And you can already imagine that then, the normal relationship is no longer possible, because if a doctor works in such a system,
then you have to ask the question: Is he still a doctor at all?
Or is he merely a medical technician working for the state? - which is something completely different...
And that brings me to the end of my remarks. Thank you very much!
Four hours of highly competent technical expertise reduced to 40 minutes.
Watch the Kla.TV summary of the MWGFD symposium on the "Measles Protection Act" on the test bench.
You want to become active yourself?
(from montage - at the end) So how can you support our campaign to repeal the measles protection law
and the vaccination obligation formulated therein?
So, please take a look at the website that has been made available as of today: https://masernschutzgesetz.mwgfd.org.
And on this website you will be kept up to date on all our activities and results.
We have produced a flyer, including our working group, which you can distribute and which can be used for
signature campaigns - in other words, campaigns throughout Germany are best. This flyer can be downloaded.
And you can also download the signature collection sheets. And it is important that our petition demands,
which I have now also submitted to the Bundestag, should always be on the signature sheet.
So talk to your MPs, talk to the politicians! We must exert pressure from below!
Talk to your doctors, talk about it with friends and colleagues!
Talk to affected families, to all young families!
This affects 700,000 people a year. And bring the issue to the public!
Kla.TV works free of charge and on a voluntary basis.
The dissemination of our programs is our only reward.
Thank you very much.