The Corona Committee was set up in July 2020 by the lawyers Antonia Fischer and Viviane Fischer and the lawyers Dr. Reiner Füllmich and Dr. Justus Hoffmann.

It seeks answers to the legal questions of whether the anti-coronavirus measures taken by the federal and state governments against a possible overloading of the health care system (“flattening the curve”) and to prevent SARS-CoV2 deaths were – in accordance with the constitutional standard of review – suitable, necessary and proportionate, or whether the collateral damage that occurred was culpably caused.

For this purpose, experts and witnesses were questioned on the matter in a total of 13 sessions between 14 July 2020 and 21 August 2020.

This short report provides an overview of the most significant findings of the meetings. A long version is in progress, further meetings will follow.

Everything stands still – the peak phase of the lockdown

In January 2020, it became apparent that a coronavirus described as novel would spread from China to Germany. In early March 2020, the media showed frightening images of disease and death in Italy: overcrowded hospitals, coffins, military on emergency duty.

The federal and state governments decided to impose a lockdown on Germany on 22 March 2020, which included the closure for several months of kindergartens, playgrounds, schools, universities, theatres, concert halls, cinemas, restaurants and all shops that did not serve the immediate basic needs of the population. Assemblies were banned, hygiene regulations were laid down and social contacts were restricted (ban on visits to old people’s homes and hospitals, travel ban, etc.). In the meantime, there have been relaxations in many areas – opening of schools, restaurants, shops, etc. – while regulations have become stricter in other areas – e.g. the obligation to wear masks, which is partly punishable by fines.

The measures deeply affected, and in some cases still affect, the fundamental rights of the population.

Particularly concerned are the

  • Freedom of opinion (Art. 5 para. 1 sentence 1 GG),
  • freedom of religion (Art. 4 para. 1 and 2 GG),
  • the freedom of art (Art. 5 para. 3 GG),
  • the freedom of science, research and teaching (Article 5(3) of the Basic Law),
  • the freedom to choose and practice a profession (Article 12(1) of the Basic Law),
  • the freedom of assembly (Art. 8 para. 1 GG),
  • the right to property (Art. 14 GG),
  • especially the right to carry on a professional activity, the freedom of movement and the freedom to choose one’s place of residence (Art. 2 para. 2 sentence 2), the right to education (Art. 26 UDHR),
  • the freedom of activity of political parties (Art. 21 GG),
  • the right to free development of the personality as part of the general freedom of action (Article 2 (1) of the Basic Law).

In the public discussion, it seems as if the equation Covid-positive = infected = contagious = diseased = doomed to die applies, so that apparently a balance has to be struck between potential deaths and restrictions on civil liberties, in short: the life of the grandmother against the renunciation of singing in a karaoke bar. It is clear that the legal right to life seemingly justifies any intrusion.

However, the emotional equation Covid-positive = doomed to die was not correct from the beginning, given the extremely low death rate from SARS-CoV-2. According to government statements, the measures were therefore never aimed at averting a specific catastrophe, but only at averting risks for the population of a possible overloading of the health system or generally speaking counteracting the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

The constitutional, legally relevant, question is therefore the following: Is the relationship correct between the reduction of the risk of contracting Covid-19 and possibly dying, and the (effective) risk the defense measures will have negative effects? Ultimately, therefore, it is a question of weighing up the various risks of life.

A measure can only be justified if the remedy is not more harmful than the disease.

Particularly in the case of massive restrictions on freedom, the government is obliged to continually examine whether these are absolutely necessary to avert danger, whether there are milder means and/or whether the collateral damage is more serious than, for example, health protection. In doing so, the government must constantly and actively seek to acquire knowledge (e.g. with regard to the dangerousness of the virus, the increase in the number of lockdown victims) in order to always reduce the intrusion on fundamental rights to the absolute minimum necessary.

Dangerousness of the virus

It quickly became clear that fears that SARS-CoV-2 would be significantly more dangerous than influenza in terms of transmissibility, disease burden and mortality were proven to be incorrect.

In the meantime, a large number of studies have been carried out on this topic. As early as April 2020, the Italian health authorities announced that the average age of the deceased was 83 years and that almost no one had died without any previous illnesses. In some cases, the dead had up to three, sometimes severe, previous illnesses, especially in the cardiopulmonary area. In Germany, too, this year’s flu season did not show any extraordinary morbidity or mortality data, neither in the outpatient nor in the inpatient sector. The only striking feature is that a temporary excess mortality became apparent in the first weeks of the lockdown. Overall, doctors’ offices and clinics were far less busy, and funeral directors were not as busy this year as they were in 2018, for example.

For comparison:
According to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the 2017/18 flu epidemic led to excess mortality in Germany with 25,100 victims from all age groups despite the vaccine.

In 2018, there were also nearly 30,000 accidental deaths including 3000 traffic victims. Hospital-acquired infections kill around 15,000 people in Germany every year.

The symptomatology of Covid-19 corresponds to that of influenza, further phenomena such as the microthromboses observed by the Hamburg pathologist Prof. Klaus Püschel in the course of autopsies performed contrary to the recommendation of the RKI have so far not turned out to be an original SARS-CoV-2 symptom. They are consequences of an excessive or misdirected immune reaction and are also known as a complication from other viral diseases. According to research by the lung specialist and epidemiologist Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, there are no current comparative studies due to the lack of autopsies in immobilised influenza patients (e.g. in old people’s homes), in whom a similar finding could be expected. However, for the influenza year 1969/70, O. Haferkamp described similar effects for influenza deaths. The assumption that SARS-CoV-2 would cause symptoms similar to those of Kawasaki syndrome has not yet been confirmed.

According to the assessment of the former chief physician Dr. Gerd Reuther, medications not approved for the treatment of Covid-19 may have been the cause of many “Covid deaths”. In Germany, suggestions for the “emergency use” of drugs and medical devices had spread via medical journals such as The Lancet. In Italy, according to information from the Italian physician Dr. Luca Speciani, there was even a corresponding written instruction for action from the health authorities. In northern Italy, relatives are now suing the regional government for malpractice. In the initial phase, the standard treatment there was paracetamol, cortisone, antibiotics, a viral static agent, hydroxychloroquine and intubation ventilation.

The first two drugs downregulate the immune system, which can be useful in individual cases, but not as a standard application, antibiotics are useless in the case of a viral infection, but put a strain on the organism, and intubation is very dangerous, especially for elderly patients, due to the risk of injuries, overpressure damage and suprainfections (with resistant germs). Ventilation with lighter masks, which the RKI had initially advised against for fear of infectious aerosols, is now being practiced successfully, according to Dr. Gerd Reuther. According to RKI President Prof. Lothar Wieler, treatment with hyperimmune obtained from the blood of recovered patients has proven to be extremely promising in severe cases. However, due to a lack of patients since April 2020, the necessary clinical studies of sufficient quality can no longer be carried out.

Studies of pre-Covid 19 blood suggest that over 80 % of people may already be immune to the novel coronavirus because of its relationship to other cold coronaviruses, or have cellular cross-immunity that also largely protects them from the SARS coronaviruses now circulating. Children, young people, parents, educators and teachers apparently refresh this cross-immunity every year without becoming seriously ill, according to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. Only people without such an annual virus update, i.e. elderly people living alone or people with an immune system weakened by illness or treatment, are more susceptible to complications. It is important to protect them.

A review of a total of 23 studies conducted worldwide has shown that the Covid infection-fatality rate (IFR) for persons over 70 years of age is approximately 0.12 %, and for persons under 70 years of age it is only 0.04 %. A closer look at the statistics compiled on very different data bases reveals that the infection-death rates and their age distribution for influenza and covid-19/coronavirus infections do not differ significantly.

According to the results of the so-called Heinsberg study by virologist Prof. Hendrik Streeck, smear infections hardly occur. The transmission via aerosols seems to be proven, however, not with the assumed highly aggressive spreading dynamics. The former head of the public health department, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, reports that studies have shown that children in general are hardly an epidemic-hygienically relevant source, because in their environment a protective collective immunity develops itself regularly without serious courses of disease.

International publications prove that approx. 5 to 15 % of respiratory diseases are caused or co-caused by cold coronaviruses. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg also points out that it has been known for a long time that respiratory viral diseases are very often (up to approx. 50 %) caused by two or even several virus species occurring together or directly one after the other.

With regard to flu vaccinations, the phenomenon is scientifically proven that the flu vaccination minimizes the risk of contracting influenza. However, the flu vaccinated suffer from respiratory diseases just as often as the unvaccinated. The place in the circle of the viruses, which the flu inoculation freed, is taken immediately by another pathogen, e.g. Rhinovirus or Coronavirus, so Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. It is striking that there are officially hardly any flu deaths in 2020 – compared to an average of 8,000 flu deaths and even 25,100 deaths in the extreme year 2017/2018. This is probably due to a so-called attention bias, a particularly concentrated and presently even financially supported observation of great misleading significance.

What role SARS-CoV-2 actually plays in the context of respiratory diseases has remained unclear according to the current state of investigation in the Committee. According to a corresponding special evaluation of the Federal Statistical Office, there was no excess mortality in Germany in the first half of 2020.

In Germany, an average of 2500 to 3000 people die every day.

If the number of persons whose deaths are attributed to Covid-19 is applied to the past months, approximately 50 persons per day have died in connection with Covid during six months. Without testing, Covid-19 might not have been noticed as a disease event in its own right. The Covid-19 sick and dead would probably have been (mis)recorded as victims of a respiratory infection triggered by influenza, a rhinovirus or one of the already known coronaviruses.

Significance of the PCR test

SARS-CoV-2 is currently to be detected by a PCR test.

This detects tiny viral gene segments, replicates them again and again and thus makes them measurable. The gene segments thus replicated and detected are used to draw conclusions about the presence of viruses previously defined as carriers of such segments. The more uniquely and typically these sections are selected and found, the more likely the presence of the type of virus sought.

Individual segments of the SaRS-CoV-2 virus are found, like the E gene coding for the viral envelope, in many coronaviruses that have long been widespread in Europe. If, as suggested by the WHO for some time and practiced by many laboratories, only these less specific gene segments are determined, the PCR test is particularly often false positive.

Due to the confusing practice of PCR testing, a statement on the epidemiological significance of the SARS-CoV-2 viruses is almost impossible to date. According to the unanimous statement of the specialists and laboratories consulted by the Committee, no reliable estimates of infection risks and thus no infection-limiting measures can be derived from PCR test results alone.

The biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis developed the PCR test in 1983 to amplify DNA sequences in vitro. According to Mullis, his test is not suitable for diagnostic purposes. As the biologist Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer, the immunologist and virologist Prof. Dolores Cahill, the immunologist Prof. Pierre Capel and the microbiologist Clemens Arvay unanimously explained in the Corona Committee, the test cannot be used today to determine whether an active viral infection is present. The gene sequences detected by the test could just as well originate from a viral infection that has already been overcome or from a contamination that does not lead to an infection at all.

Many of the different currently used and still not officially validated SARS-CoV-2 tests react, as e.g. the INSTAND interlaboratory test of the German Accreditation Body already showed in April 2020, to 1.4 % false positive in a blank sample, and even up to 7.6 % false positive in a sample mixed with the known coronavirus HCoV OC 43. There are various tests in circulation which, according to the interlaboratory comparison, show false positives in a remarkable 20 to 50 % of the tests, which, as described, may also be due to the fact that some of these tests only target the more unspecific E gene.

Many German laboratories use so-called in-house tests based on the test protocols published by the WHO (compare e.g. the so-called Drosten test assay of 17 January 2020). According to European standards, these tests require official validation. In practice, however, it is most often given up due to the “emergency situation”.

According to the above, it is impossible to determine how many of the 239,507 people tested positive by the RKI were actually infected as of 27 August 2020. The same applies to the 9288 people reported as died in connection with coronavirus.

Reports from other countries

The Covid-19 statistics in the USA (reportedly approx. 5.3 million infected and 180,000 deaths by the end of August) have meanwhile been discreetly corrected in a way that Covid-19 is now only listed as the sole cause of death in less than 10,000 patients. In the case of the remaining (in many cases very old) deaths, the American health authority CDC assumes that Covid-19 can at best have been a contributory cause because of the numerous previous illnesses. The holistic American physician and dedicated chronicler of coronavirus events Pam Popper has told the committee that there were and are major misincentives in the USA to diagnose coronavirus. There are instructions to record patients as having covid-19 if there is even a subjective suspicion that they have it. The hospitals do not receive the standard rate of 13,000 US dollars for the intubation of a SARS-CoV-2-positive patient, but three times that amount, i.e. 39,000 US dollars. People who have not been tested at all because they stopped waiting in a test queue have also been told they have tested positive.

On the hospital occupancy situation, Pam Popper reports that in New York, contrary to what the press claims, there were no patients in the parking lots. Donald Trump’s hospital ship was virtually empty. Moreover, while allegedly the spectacular treatments took place in atypical places, completely intact hospitals were closed. Incidentally, no differences were found between the number of people who tested positive in the states with and without a lockdown.

Dr. Luca Speciani informed the meeting that in Italy, too, there had been false incentives for the diagnosis of Covid-19. For example, funeral allowances of € 300 were paid to the relatives if coronavirus was written on the death certificate. Dr. Speciani further reported that approx. 7000 only slightly ill persons had been transferred from hospitals to poorly staffed old people’s homes and isolated there. This alone had led to many infections and unclear deaths among the residents of the homes. This, along with the departure of a large number of foreign nursing staff shortly before the lockdown, had been a major cause of deaths in the homes.

Entrepreneur Ash Zrl reported from Nepal that there were only 70 coronavirus deaths out of 32 million Nepalese. In addition, 11 people had committed suicide after being diagnosed with coronavirus. The country had experienced a massive lockdown lasting several months with devastating economic effects. Demonstrations were banned, desperate students and artists were on hunger strike, also to protest the disappearance of 90 million US dollars meant to repatriate five million expatriate Nepalese.

South African lawyer Anthony Brinks reported massive confinement with extremely low covid-19 mortality.The official sale of alcohol and cigarettes had been banned. As a result, he said, the state has suffered significant financial losses and is now forced to resort to IMF funds. The lawyer expressed fears that South Africa, in its economic distress, could be forced into a gagging agreement here.

Sweden was one of the few countries to overcome the coronavirus crisis without a lockdown. Psychologist and journalist Patrick Plaga reports that life in Sweden continued quietly during the crisis, with the economy only being affected to a small extent. Kindergartens and primary schools were open all the time, only secondary schools and universities were closed.

Large events were forbidden, people would have been good at following a set of hygiene rules (wash your hands, keep your distance). Masks are not worn in Sweden. The majority of the elderly coronavirus victims lived in old people’s homes where, as the head of the health department and chief virologist Anders Tegnell admitted, protection had not been sufficiently successful.

Patrick Plaga explained that Anders Tegnell, who had already acted in the same capacity during the swine flu outbreak, had always taken care to communicate with the population in a reassuring manner. For example, the number of Covid-positive people would not be presented cumulatively on television without deducting the (estimated) recovered as in Germany, but rather only the daily incidence, which is a more true-to-life presentation. Patrick Plaga suspects that Andres Tegnell, by his reassuring appearance, also wants to avoid panic-stricken vaccination, which in the case of swine flu has led to many damages (among others narcolepsy, autoimmune diseases). Remarkable in Sweden is that in a health emergency the head of the health department becomes solely responsible and thus no political influence on health policy decisions is possible.

German journalist Gaby Weber reports from Argentina. The country suffers from such a massive lockdown regime that even borrowing an egg from a neighbour can lead to a prison sentence. The courts have been closed for five months, so that no legal protection can be obtained. In the course of the lockdown, many criminals had been released, some of them committed crimes again. The lockdown was imposed on evidence of zero coronavirus deaths. The Argentines were desperate because their economy was already in the dumps.

Danger for the health service

The aim of the measures in Germany was to reduce the risk that the health care system would become so overburdened that there would be insufficient treatment capacity for the many sick people, especially those requiring inpatient or intensive care. Germany has 20,000 intensive care beds, and the Corana increase has created up to 30,000 beds.

According to the constantly updated overview of the University of Konstanz (www.corona-vis.de), there was never the slightest threat of overload. The occupancy rate was mostly well below 70 % and many hospitals had to send staff on short-time work. At the Charité, for example, the utilization rate in March/April was about 60 %. The former chief physician Dr. Gerd Reuther confirmed to the Committee the consistent under-utilisation of many hospitals from his own experience.

Result: SARS-CoV-2 and the respiratory disease Covid-19 possibly triggered by the virus posed and pose a low risk with regard to an overload of the German health care system, so that measures aimed at counteracting such an overload could only develop a modest effectiveness.

Nothing works anymore – the lockdown at its peak.

Negative effects of the measures

The lockdown, in the sense of the total set of measures depriving and restricting freedom which were decided on 22 March (including those which were already in force and maintained, such as the ban on large events), represents the most massive restriction of fundamental rights in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany affecting the entire population across the board.

The set of measures had a multitude of negative effects on social, cultural and societal life, on the health of the people in Germany and on their economic opportunities.

In order to assess the proportionality of the measures taken to prevent the virus threats, the Committee consulted a large number of experts and stakeholders.

The situation of children

According to the expert opinion of the psychologist Elisabeth Sternbeck, the situation of the children and adolescents in the coronavirus crisis is extremely problematic. In this extrem lockdown, they were completely torn away from their usual social environment outside the family (daycare, school), had hardly any contact with other children, were taught by parents who were often untrained in this respect, and were for the first time massively dependent on the use of digital media for educational purposes. In the lockdown, existing family problems often intensified. The multiple stresses on families – home office, childcare, coronavirus fears, family confinement, lack of outside contact, existential fears – had also led to problems from the beginning. The children respond to the stress with the development of sometimes great fears and aggression. Elisabeth Sternbeck reports about a little boy who believes that there are lots of little critters (coronavirus) on his hands, the reason why he has to keep away from other people.

Like the psychoimmunologist Prof. Christian Schubert, Elisabeth Sternbeck quotes the communication strategy of the paper “Wie wir Covid-19 in den Griff kriegen” (“How to get a grip on Covid-19”) from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which is apparently being implemented very precisely by the government, as a cause for traumatization that can be observed in a large parts of the population. There, the government is advised to use a shock strategy to motivate people to comply with hygiene regulations. In particular, we should conjure up the fear of an agonizing death by suffocation of beloved relatives, for which one could be responsible oneself if, for example, one does not wash one’s hands thoroughly enough. Prof. Christian Schubert points out that psychological traumas lead to immune suppression, the effects of which are reflected in the RNA and can even be passed on epigenetically to future generations.

Elisabeth Sternbeck refers to the “Still Face” experiment, which is particularly impressive regarding the masks, in which a mother shows her baby a completely immobile face and no longer responds to it through facial expressions. After only two minutes of futile attempts to elicit a visible reaction from the mother, the baby begins to cry and scream. This experiment impressively shows how important is the ability to read faces and the emotional optical reaction through facial expressions, especially for human development.

Tina Romdhani from the initiative “Parents stand up” reports about discriminations that children who cannot wear masks face, among other things, through punitive work and about the discord that the different attitudes on this issue sow between people.

The situation in the nursing homes

There has been a great deal of suffering in care homes as a result of the lockdown. Far-reaching visiting bans have been imposed, both in relation to relatives and in relation to doctors, physiotherapists, speech therapists, chiropodists, etc. As a result, the health of many people in need of care has deteriorated, sometimes irreversibly. The abrupt change in living circumstances – e.g. the absence of helping relatives – has put dementia patients in particular under great stress and emotional strain.

In this situation, many have lost the courage to face life, as nursing expert Adelheid von Stös-ser reports. The care situation, which was already difficult in many homes, has worsened considerably as a result of the measures, according to Martin Kusch, a professional caregiver. The “care TÜV” of the medical service of the health insurance companies MDK was stopped, so that no more official control of the Pflegequaltiät could take place. Besides the important Regulativ of the intervention possibility of the members and responsible persons against bad states became void.

Many home inhabitants would have been calmed down unnecessarily and frequently with sedatives by an overloaded nursing staff with negative consequences, partly even potentially fatal. A relative reports on the extreme conditions in her mother’s home, which led her only being able to speak to her 90-year-old mother, who suffers from dementia, on her birthday through a balcony door that was tilted open, a situation experienced as traumatic by both sides.

Martin Kusch describes the situation of the home residents as worse than prison inmates ones, because in many cases it is not even possible to talk to the residents alone in the home, but only under the supervision of a nurse, which in turn takes manpower away from the care of the home residents.

The masks

Psychologist Daniela Prousa explains her study, according to which 60 % of the people who felt clearly burdened by the regulations were already experiencing severe (psychosocial) consequences. This manifests itself in a greatly reduced participation in life in society due to aversion-related NMS (Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome) related to avoidance efforts, social withdrawal, reduced health self-care (up to and including avoidance of doctor’s appointments) or the intensification of previous health problems (post-traumatic stress disorders, herpes, migraine).

According to the description of the psychiatrist and psychotherapist Dr. Hans-Joachim Maaz, the mask reactivates traumas already present in society and threatens to become a projection object and lightning rod for one’s own frustration and stress, from which the very aggressive rebukes for apparent “mask refusers” can be partly explained. Character weaknesses or other misbehaviour are attributed to them or prognosticated, e.g. antisocial behaviour such as theft. The denunciation that is reemerging in the coronavirus context is highly questionable for the society as a whole. It is to be feared that, especially in view of the children who, with social distancing, learn behaviours that are not at all in keeping with human nature, a very large group of people in need of therapy has already emerged and will continue to emerge if the problem situation persists.

Socio-cultural damage

Professor of Public Law Dietrich Murswiek writes in his expert notice on the legality of the coronavirus measures: “It is difficult to weigh the non-material damages. But they must not be underestimated. Man is a social being. Social interaction, intellectual, cultural, musical activities belong to the core of what constitutes the human personality – with individual differences, of course – and what distinguishes humans from animals. Restrictions and prohibitions can be relatively trivial if they are of short duration, but over a longer period of time they impair the possibilities of personality development in a very serious way.”

These aspects, which still need to be examined in more detail by the Committee, include the loss of education through the cancellation or restriction of school lessons and other educational instruments, the loss of cultural stimulation/experience through the closure of theatres, concert halls or opera houses, etc…, the loss of opportunities for musical development through bans that prevent joint music-making in orchestras or choirs, the loss of community experiences/personal social interaction through bans on meetings in clubs, bans on events, bans on gatherings, closure of pubs and much more.

Data protection

In terms of data protection law, many problems have arisen in connection with coronavirus. Under current law, the PCR test may normally only be performed by a doctor or under the supervision of a doctor. The patient has a right to know.

The patient must be informed of the name of the doctor responsible and the name of the laboratory commissioned, and must also be informed of what will happen to his samples. A genetic analysis of the patient’s DNA, which is inevitably included in the sampling, may only be carried out if consent has been given. In the coronavirus case, however, the necessary control is not possible at present. If the DNA were to be used for research purposes, the patient would have to be informed in detail about the specific research project involved. The exemplarily discussed submission form to the Labor Berlin Charité Vivantes GmbH, which is linked on the website of the RKI via the consiliar laboratory for coronaviruses, does not meet these requirements. The committee has asked the suscribers to describe the circumstances of their sample collection so that insights can be gained into the extent of the coming from data protection problem.

According to government announcements, a normal life will only be possible once a vaccine has been found. There are currently about 170 applications for approval of vaccines submitted to the relevant authorities. Of these, the majority want to work with technologies that are considered experimental. In this respect, mRNA/DNA vaccines are particularly new, as biomedical scientist Clemens Arvay reports. These are partly introduced into the cells of the human body by means of electrostimulation and then – potentially – use all the body’s own cells as bioreactors for the production of antigens. This represents, even if it is formulated differently in the law, de facto a genetic manipulation of humans. Moreover, it is a procedure that has never been routinely used on humans.

The attendance lists in the restaurants, which are sometimes kept in drawers, are very problematic from a data protection point of view. The danger that these lists are also misused for other purposes – e.g. the investigative work of the police in other matters – has already been observed in individual cases.

Vaccination as a way out?

According to government announcements, a normal life will only be possible once a vaccine has been found. There are currently about 170 applications for approval of vaccines submitted to the relevant authorities. Of these, the majority want to work with technologies that are considered experimental. In this respect, mRNA/DNA vaccines are particularly new, as biomedical scientist Clemens Arvay reports. These are partly introduced into the cells of the human body by means of electrostimulation and then – potentially – use all the body’s own cells as bioreactors for the production of antigens. This represents, even if it is formulated differently in the law, de facto a genetic manipulation of humans. Moreover, it is a procedure that has never been routinely used on humans.

Under normal circumstances, it takes six to eight years to develop a safe conventional vaccine. The novel Coronavirus vaccine is now expected to be approved in a few months in a so-called “telescopic procedure”, in which actually sequential study parts are carried out in parallel, which Dr. Clemes Arvay considers highly dangerous and not compatible with the precautionary principle in force in the EU and Germany.

The (negative) effects of the new technology could not be assessed; in particular, it could not be foreseen which type of cells and how many of these cells would be genetically transformed into mRNA bioreactors. Entry into the human germ cells could also not be ruled out with certainty, so that any damage could only manifest itself at a late stage or possibly only in future generations. The extremely short observation times prevent the detection of possible late effects due to neoplasms or autoimmune diseases as it is the case on defence processes in other infectious diseases or vaccinations.

Since SARS, it has not been possible to develop an effective and safe vaccine. In an attempt to develop a coronavirus vaccine for cats, all of the cats died when exposed to the wild virus after vaccination because of an out-of-control immune response (so-called overshooting antibody-mediated response). Experiments with a SARS vaccine indicated that a similar problem may arise in humans. Also in this context, the Dutch immunologist Prof. Pierre Capel considers it highly dangerous to open shortened approval routes for the SARS-CoV2 vaccine.

Nevertheless, a vaccine has already been in production in India for several months, as can be seen from the press release of the manufacturing company.


The economy suffers extremely from the lockdown and the follow-up measures. The committee heard on behalf of many the solo self-employed and artist Martin Ruland, the karaoke bar operator Nils Roth, the hospital caterer Hermann Wagner and Martin Reiser, who works as a consultant in the automotive industry. Martin Ruland, Nils Roth and Martin Reiser all report that the lockdown has pulled the economic rug out from under their feet. They are currently (still) living off savings. Nils Roth has succeeded in obtaining a bridging loan. Hermann Wagner has suffered a significant drop in sales; in one part of his business – he also runs a burger chain supplied according to Demeter guidelines – sales have almost completely collapsed. All of them report that they do not feel well supported by the state in their efforts to cushion the economic difficulties caused by Lockdown or the restrictives measures. Nils Roth, for example, did not receive any subsidies, he was not supported by the authorities in developing a hygiene concept, and he was also disconcerted by the unequal treatment of his large karaoke bar, which was not justified by the authorities, compared to competitors who had already reopened in other Berlin districts.

The economist Prof. Christian Kreis explained – in agreement with the remarks of the economics professor and psychoanalyst Wolf-Dieter Stelzner – that quite independently of coronavirus, the global economy had been already on the verge of collapse at least since the financial crisis. In this context, coronavirus acted as an accelerant, but at the same time the lockdown crisis revealed not only the economic, but also a whole host of socio-political mismanagement.

Prof. Christian Kreiss expects between 500,000 and 800,000 insolvencies in the autumn of this year, especially among small and medium-sized entrepreneurs and self-employed persons, i.e. the backbone of the German economy. Prof. Wolf-Dieter Stelzner pointed out that the conventional economic theories were not suitable to anticipate the financial crisis in 2009, the less one is now up to the current, many times more massive crisis.

Both experts agree that a completely new approach to economics is needed, one that is holistic and includes other disciplines such as the social sciences and psychology, among others.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is in bad shape in the context of the coronavirus / Lockdown crisis. The legal basis for the coronavirus Regulations is Section 28 of the Infection Control Act. The Protection against Infection Act was amended on 25 March 2020 with effect from 27 March 2020. At the suggestion of the Health Committee, the determination of the “epidemic situation of national scope” was made automatically with the entry into force of the Act, which is highly problematic in terms of constitutional law, as evidenced, inter alia, by a legal opinion by Prof. Thorsten Kingreen of the University of Regensburg.

At the beginning of the lockdown, the courts were severely restricted in their activities, among other things due to understaffing of the offices. The coronavirus ordinances of the federal states have suspended the suspensive effect of any objection for their area of application, so that citizens are directly obliged to refer to a legal action with the corresponding cost consequences. However, a limited standard of review applies in interim legal protection, which is why virtually no successes have been achieved there to date. A well-known exception is, among others, the lifting of the ban imposed by the Berlin Senator of the Interior on the large-scale demonstration of 29 August 2020 by the Administrative Court of Berlin, confirmed by the OVG Berlin. The settlement of the main issue may not take place in summary proceedings, so that only very obvious injustice must be terminated immediately.

As lawyer Gordon Pankalla reports, it is problematic that the courts always base their decisions on the RKI’s assessment that a “dangerous” situation must be established. Although they are actually obligated according to the official investigation principle at least to a plausibility examination, they radically refuse to deal with the scientific studies submitted by the plaintiffs on basis of their figures when they do not indicate an endangerment for the health service. Due to the short duration of the regulations, in some cases only four weeks, the courts also argue that any restrictions of fundamental rights are effectively acceptable due to the short period of impairment.

A special notice of the Berlin-Brandenburg Land Constitutional Court nevertheless comes to the conclusion that even short-term restrictions of fundamental rights cannot be accepted, because it is not the citizen who has to explain why and how he or she wants to exercise his or her rights of freedom, but rather the state, which has to explain for which major reasons it interferes with the rights of freedom. The Federal Constitutional Court has stated, at least with regard to the exercise of freedom of religion, that the legislator must continually review whether the circumstances that permitted a restriction of fundamental rights continue to exist. So far, the courts have not followed this view in their case-law practice.

Martin Schwab, Professor of Civil Law, commented on the issue of state liability. He explained that the state, which forbids an entrepreneur to generate income with the help of his activity, must explain where the money for his livelihood (the entrepreneur’s) should come from. Entrepreneurs who supported the State with their tax payments in good times now have the right to be supported by the State – also financially – in bad times. The State should not leave a trader confronted with his debts if, at the same time, it forbids him to generate income that covers his costs.

Interferences with the freedom of occupation, which lead to a systematic underfunding, are just as likely to be compensated as corresponding interferences with private property. The state was therefore obliged to financially support the entrepreneurs in the coronavirus crisis and cannot strip them with insufficient aids. All this applies, he said, even if the policymakers are blamelessly inaccurate in their assessment of the threat situation. If it should turn out that the decision-makers had culpably misjudged the crisis at a certain point in time and had imposed restrictions on commercial activity on this erroneous basis, official liability pursuant to § 839 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 34 of the Basic Law would also come into consideration.

It is certainly debatable whether specific points in time can be identified that would have forced a review of the coronavirus measures – such as the publication of the reproduction graph in Epidemiological Bulletin no. 17/2020, which showed that the R-value had already fallen below 1 on 20 March 2020, or the disclosure of the comprehensive risk analysis prepared in the course of his duties by the now suspended senior government official Stefan Kohn from the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which had been dismissed by the government as a purely private survey without any necessary factual discussion. From his analysis Stefan Kohn had come to the conclusion that the assessment of the Corona crisis led to a false alarm. The opportunities offered by this to have an open discussion about the real extent of the threat posed by SARS CoV-2 on the one hand and the massive collateral damage on the other had not been used.

Should the technical justification of the coronavirus measures ultimately prove to be inadequate, state actors could be considered as guilty of not engaging in this discussion.

The role of the media

The media are classically referred to as the fourth pillar of democracy. The Interstate Broadcasting Treaty obliges the public media to report objectively. However, the study by Dennis Gräf and Martin Hennig, among others, shows that the coronavirus special broadcasts of ARD and ZDF have reported very one-sidedly inducting anxiety panic, based onstubborn slogans reporting like a prayer mill about rising case numbers, problematic courses of disease and coronavirus heroes in the supermarkets and hospitals, but completely ignoring contrary voices regarding the effective dangerousness of the virus and the complete lack of overloading of the health system.

The political scientist and journalist Hermann Ploppa reports on an intensive economic and personal nesting of decision-makers and editors-in-chief of the mainstream press with transnational think tanks (experts, …), the pharmaceutical industry and political structures, which made critical reporting difficult. It also becomes clear that journalists share out with the population on topics like precarious employment conditions and time pressure, among other, and, in parallel, do not (or cannot) question “official” figuresor messages. The journalist Patrick Plaga reports from Sweden that an open culture of discussion in the journalistic field seems to be better developed there than in Germany and that, accordingly, more critical voices can be heard (however, in the absence of a lockdown, criticals in Sweden tend to be advocates of a tougher approach).

The communication scientist and media researcher Prof. Michael Meyen and the media scientist Prof. Johannes Ludwig state that it is quite obvious that a large group of journalists are under pressure because they fear to lose their jobs in case of government- or pharma-critical publications. This could be connected with the fact that large investors such as Blackrock or Bill Gates also invest money and carry out sponsoring in the media sector (e.g. € 2.5 million sponsoring of Spiegel online by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and have thus gained a certain control over these media.

What is strange however, is that, even the public broadcasters ARD and ZDF, which are well funded by the fee-paying public, do publications strictly along government lines.

Misaligned incentives in the system

Misaligned incentives are emerging at multiple levels among all those who contributed to create the coronavirus and Lockdown crises.

The health coach Don Dylan from the Next Scientists for Future addresses the fact that the current health system is fundamentally misguided, because effective disease prevention, e.g. through strengthening the immune system via nice experiences within the community, is not economically worthwhile. Currently, only medicine using equipments and the sale of (partly toxic) medicines attached to it are economically interesting. Considering this in connection with the industrial production of partly dangerous (e.g. completely over-sugared) food, it’s becoming obvious that a pathogenic cycle consisting of mutually dependent false stimuli is setting up: pathogenic industrially produced food leads directly into apparatus and drug medicine.

The former head of the economic department, Heinz Kruse, reports on sclerotic structures in the administrative sector and in the political parties, which would lead to the fact that it would be difficult to leave a path once taken, to recognize a mistake, and even less to correct it.

Preliminary result

Based on the current state of knowledge, there is much to suggest that the risk posed by SARS- CoV-2 was greatly overestimated, but that the risks and damage caused by the anti-coronavirus measures were not sufficiently taken into account. The Government has already stated in April 2020 that it had not undertaken an impact assessment and did not plan to do so. In proceedings before the Bavarian Administrative Court led by lawyer Jessica Hamed, the Bavarian State Chancellery has let it be known that to date – in violation of the principle of the rule of law, according to which all government action must be verifiable – there are no documents, no written expert reports on the impact assessment. This is to be seen as at least a serious neglect, especially in view of the ever more massive reports of lockdown damage to businesses, children, the elderly etc.

The risk assessment shows that a manageable risk (influenza-like virus with no generalized risk potential for the health system as a whole) has been combated with a high-risk package of measures. The lockdown and associated measures risks have already materialized to an extreme extent. They do not had the expected impact, as infections or positive test results were already on the decline at the time the lockdown was imposed, as it can be seen, at least in retrospect, by evaluating deaths. Since late June 2020, positive test results now appear to be within the range of the test’s baseline false positive. Due to the continuing measures (masks, social distancing, closure of concert halls, etc.), further major damage to the economy, health, cultural, social life of the people in Germany is caused on a daily basis. Damage and benefit are out of proportion. In the same way, the intrusion on fundamental rights are disproportionate and therefore unlawful.

The governments have not carried out a sufficient assessment of respective interests, as it has been explicitly observed by the supreme court; on the contrary, they have deliberately refrained themselves from observing the collateral damage. Thus, the governments can certainly blame themselves for culpable actions.

Committee members

  • Lawyer Antonia Fischer, Medical Lawyer, Berlin
  • Lawyer and economist Viviane Fischer, Berlin
  • Attorney at Law Dr. Justus Hoffmann, Liability Lawyer, Berlin
  • Attorney at Law Dr. Reiner Füllmich, Liability Lawyer, Göttingen and California

Experts at the hearing

Order by reference in the report

  • Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of the public health department
  • Dr. Gerd Reuther, Chief Physician (ret.)
  • Dr. Luca Speciani, Chairman Physicians’ Network
  • Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, Biologist
  • Prof. Dolores Cahill, Virologist and Immunologist, Ireland
  • Prof. Piere Capel, Immunologist, Holland
  • Clemens Arvay, graduate engineer, Austria
  • Pam Popper, holistic physician, USA
  • Ash Zrl, entrepreneur, Nepal
  • Lawyer Anthony Brings, South Africa
  • Patrick Plaga, psychologist and journalist, Germany and Sweden
  • Gaby Weber, journalist, Germany and Argentina
  • Elisabeth Sternbeck, psychologist and psychotherapist
  • Prof. Dr. Christian Schubert, Psychoimmunologist
  • Tina Romdhani, Parents Stand Up Initiative
  • Adelheid von Stösser, nursing expert
  • Martin Kusch, Supervisor
  • Daniela Prousa, Psychologist
  • Dr. Hans-Joachim Maaz, psychiatrist and psychotherapist
  • Prof. Dr. Christian Kreiss, economist
  • Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Stelzner, economist and psychoanalyst Lawyer Gordon Pankalla
  • Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab, Civil Law
  • Hermann Ploppa, political scientist and publicist
  • Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen, communication scientist and media researcher
  • Prof. Dr. Johannes Ludwig, media scientist
  • Don Dylan, Health Coach Next Scientists for Future
  • Heinz Kruse, former Head of the Economic Department


Studies / Documents (Selection)

Dangerousness of the virus

Overview of studies on transmissibility, burden of disease and mortality of Covid-19


Non-pharmaceutical interventions do not appear to affect the virus or overall transmission rates


Epidemic worldwide with and without measures over after six weeks


Statement Network Evidence-Based Medicine


Update Covid 19


Heinsberg study


Overview of intensive care bed utilization

Findings on the PCR test


Deleted Video. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Accuracy of the PCR test, interlaboratory comparison of the German Accreditation Body

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Hotspot Strategy of the Federal Government of 16.07.2020

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Too many false positives


Calculate accuracy yourself


Negative effects of the measures

KM4 Analysis of crisis management (ORR Stephan Kohn/BMI)

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Lockdown deaths on the mortality curve


Reports of lockdown victims


The situation of children

Panic paper of the BMI

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Still Face Experiment


Social distancing experiment with young rhesus monkeys

Experts sharply criticise reduction of children’s rights


The situation in the nursing homes

SWR report, Home residents in crisis


Nursing home virus trap


The suffering of the home residents in isolation


The masks

Study on psychological and psychovegetative effects of the masks

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Protection not documented

No evidence of efficacy


Data protection

Guidelines for tracking apps


Beyond 1 Million Genomes


Vaccination as a way out?

The Goldegg Publishing House

Deleted page. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?

Genetic engineering in humans


Clemens Arvay on the dangers of the new vaccines



Economic impact of the lockdown


Brand letter to small and medium-sized businesses

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Rule of Law

Legal opinion Prof. Kingreen


Federal Constitutional Court on religious practice in the lockdown


Legal opinion Prof. Murswiek

Deleted document. If possible, call and ask – Why remove so good content from the network?


Special Opinion of the Constitutional Court of Berlin


Constitutional lawyer paper on the encroachment of fundamental rights


The role of the media

The narrowing of the world


Journalism and government policy hand in hand?


Misaligned incentives – Bought science


Foundation Corona Committee
c/o Lawyer Viviane Fischer
Waldenserstr. 22
10178 Berlin


Patinka? Dalinkitės su draugais!


Kokia jūsų reakcija?

confused confused
fail fail
love love
lol lol
omg omg
win win