Doctors Censure Case

Doctors Censure Case

Re: the Legality of a Group of Doctors & Scientists Warning Patients of Clear Dangers from Experimental injections

Facts of the Case

Dates: Jan 12, 2023
Location: Passau, Germany
Court: Regional Court
Case #: ?
Plaintiff: The Bavarian Medical Association
Plaintiff’s Lawyer:

Defendant: MWGDF (Dr. Ronald Weikl as chair)
Trial Type: appeal
Judge: ?
Status: Decided
Verdict: for the Defendant

*updated Feb 14, 2022

Background

The group, Doctors and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy (Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Freiheit und Demokratie or MWGFD), led by Dr. Ronald Weikl has been the subject of a complaint filed by the Bavarian Medical Association which had sought to prevent this group keeping a public warning about the dangers of Covid-19 vaccines on their website. Specifically [1]:

The association had published an information letter to doctors on its homepage, in which it had pointed out the ineffective and dangerous “vaccines” against Corona and, in particular, possible liability risks at the expense of vaccinating doctors. The Bavarian Medical Association therefore wanted to issue a warning to the MWGFD and demanded an injunction against the publication and distribution of the letter.

An appeal by the MWGDF was heard in a Passau court in Bavaria with the result that … [1]

… the warning against the ineffective and dangerous Corona “vaccines” was declared a permissible statement of fact and opinion. After Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) had been allowed by a judge as recently as November to continue spreading his obviously and demonstrably false theoriesof a supposedly “side-effect-free vaccination” (which he has since stopped doing), this ruling seemed only logical on the one hand. On the other hand, there has unfortunately been more than one judge who was removed from office because of a “wrong” -i.e. not government-compliant -judgement.[1]

Significance

First Corona Case in Germany to uphold the Right of a Group of Medical Professionals to Free Speech

Plaintiff’s Argument

The plaintiff’s lawyer argued that:

the MWGFD was acting in a businesslike manner because the association was calling for donations via its homepage and was also accepting them. (1)

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant’s lawyer, Beate Bahner had pointed out in an information letter even prior to the appeal certain serious facts concerning the injections that the plaintiff did not want to accept: (1)

“We urge you to no longer close your eyes to these serious facts. Draw the necessary consequences now, do not wait until the medical and political authorities come to their senses.” Among these “grave facts”, the lawyer specifically includes the fact that the Covid-19 vaccines are all unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous, and that the vaccinating doctors can be held personally liable in case of vaccine damage. The letter went on to say, “Do not be complicit in the senseless prolongation of this irresponsible vaccination campaign that has already cost so many people their health and quite a few their lives.” These remarks were backed up by numerous references to relevant publications and studies proving the ineffectiveness and danger of these “vaccines”.

The main argument which has however settled the outcome of this case is a point in commercial business law where the judge clearly found the argument of the plaintiff invalid. This is well explained in a video which lawyer Bahner posted after the hearing. Her original video was immediately taken down by YouTube. Watch an english subtitled version of the video here. [4]

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

Decision

The court’s decision (1 HK O 1/22) ruled in favour of the defendant [2]

… for formal legal reasons, the court had no choice but to dismiss as unfounded the complaint filed by the Bavarian Medical Association against the MWGFD (Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Freiheit und Demokratie) in the person of its deputy chairman, Dr Ronald Weikl. [1]
The action … was … dismissed by the Regional Court of Passau “because such information is already not a commercial act. And only commercial acts may be warned and prosecuted in court under competition law – in this case, claims under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).” More importantly, however, the court also found that the letter was exclusively a statement of fact and opinion on “vaccinations”, which is why it falls within the realm of public communication and explicitly does not constitute a commercial act. [1]

The judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument on the basis that:

the Passau Regional Court did not consider the solicitation of donations to be a commercial act. And a possible service in the sense of competition law was also not recognisable for the judge, since the MWGFD did not advertise for vaccination – but explicitly against it – and did not derive any financial benefit from it. [1]

Aftermath

A video update concerning the court’s decision posted by the defendant’s lawyer, Beate Bahner on her video account with YouTube was quickly deleted. (2) (see it below in Media)

Lawyer Bahner has filed a complaint 31 Jan 2023 against YT in the Heidelberg Regional Court. (3)

Further Research

Court Documents:

In the news:

Media

Lawyer Beate Bahner explains the Dr. Ronald Weikl verdict -Feb 9th 2023

source: Odysee / longXXvids

Dr Weikl’s Call to all judges, prosecutors and lay judges Dec 6, 2022

source: MW

MWGFD Lawyer Bahner warns of C19 injections Dangers -Nov 16 2022

source: Odysee / Wahrheit und Fakten aufgedeckt

Dr Weikl’s Daughter Describes Police Intimidation -May 2, 2022

source: Odysee / longXXvids

References

Keyword

Bahner, Bavarian Medical Association, Beate Bahner, Censorship, Censure, Covid-19 vaccines, Doctors, Dr Ronald Weikl, Freedom of Speech, Germany, Medical Ethics, MWGFD, Passau, Passau Court Ruling, Untested and Unsafe, Vaccine Injuries and Deaths

Back to All Cases

Legal Opinion-Bahner-VaxLegality

Legal Opinion

Re: the illegal implementation of the vaccines & violation of German & EU Medical Laws

Back to All Cases

Legal Report written by the German lawyer Beate Bahner, outlining the many violations under German & EU Law of the Covid Inoculation program. (Dated Dec 27, 2021)

Section 1 : is the full original document (in German)

Section 2 : is a ‘Working English’ translation made by Corona Cases of item “9. Summary” of lawyer Bahner’s document

(i.e. it is not an ‘official translation’ authorized for legal purposes but only intended as an aid to understanding of the main content of the German summary.)

Section 3 : is a Video in which she warns of the Criminal Consequences of participating in the inoculation program (with English Subtitles).

1

Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.

2

9. Summary

1. A substance may only be used for the manufacture of a medicinal product if the intended use is either described in a monograph in accordance with the pharmacopoeia in a monograph, or extensive additional studies, including toxicity studies and clinical studies are submitted for the new new excipients.

2. The sense and purpose of all German and European pharmaceutical regulations is the protection of people through the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal products.

3. EMA [the European Medicines Agency] has imposed special conditions on BioNTech – particularly with regard to the two lipid nanoparticles, ALC 0315 and ALC 0159 in particular, as these are novel adjuvants for the Comirnaty vaccine and used for the first time on humans and in a novel way.

4. The corresponding special conditions of the EMA (specific obligations SO2, SO4, SO5) for these novel adjuvants had to be fulfilled by Biontech by July 2021.

5. Both the EMA report on the extension of the conditional marketing authorization in October 2021 as well as the safety data sheet of Pfizer for Comirnaty dated 7.12.2021 show that these conditions have not been fulfilled and that the required documentation is not available. It says: “No data available”.

6. This is a violation of the principles of good manufacturing practice and thus also a a violation of the recognized pharmaceutical rules in the sense of § 8 para. 1 no. 1 AMG. According to this, it is forbidden to bring medicinal products into the market such that “by deviation from the recognized pharmaceutical rules, their quality is not insignificantly reduced”.

7. The quality is already reduced by the fact alone that two essential ingredients contained in Comirnaty are not intended for use in or on humans and are therefore considered “novel excipients” for which special documents and evidence must be provided.

8. In addition, lipid-related impurities in the vaccine are already documented in EMA’s registration dossier. Impurities of the vaccine are documented. These impurities are likely to increase in the light of further information on the reduction in filtration processes of the adjuvant nanolipid ALC-0315, these impurities may have even increased. With the reduction of the filtering processes, the marketing authorization holder would also violate S02, SO4 and SO5 of EMA in the marketing authorization notice.

9. Finally, according to the safety reports of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, the vaccine shows an alarming number of harmful effects that far beyond what is “justifiable” according to medical science.

10. Due to this fact, there is furthermore a violation of § 5 para. 1 AMG namely, a violation of the prohibition of the marketing and use of questionable medicinal products. Thus, not only the manufacturers but also the vaccinating physicians, as well as all persons responsible for a vaccination with Comirnaty are subject to the regulations of the Medicinal Products Act.

11. Violations of § 8 AMG and § 5 AMG are classified as criminal offenses according to § 95 para. 1 no. 1 and no. 3a and are punishable by up to 3 years’ imprisonment. Negligent commission is also punishable, § 95 para. 4 AMG.

12. A particularly serious case of this offense with imprisonment of up to 10 years if another person is exposed to the risk of death or serious injury to body or health, § 95 (3) No. 2 AMG. In this case is the manufacture, distribution and use of the vaccine Comirnaty contrary to the prohibitions of §§ 5 and 8 AMG. is intentionally realized.

13. Furthermore, vaccination may not be carried out in the case of allergies to a component of the vaccine. Therefore, all persons to be vaccinated must be tested in advance for a possible allergy to one of the components in order to exclude any contraindication to the vaccination.

14. Therefore, a person may not be vaccinated until he or she has been tested for tolerance to each of the components of the vaccine with respect to allergic compatibility and the tolerance to all components of the Comirnaty vaccine has been medically confirmed.

15. Until then, vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine must be prohibited due to the possibility of a serious health hazard.

16. An infringement not only violates the aforementioned provisions of the Medicinal Products of the Medicines Act, but also other principles of general criminal law.

17. All statements also apply to the vaccine Spikevax from MODERNA!

Heidelberg, 27 December 2021

Beate Bahner[signed]

3

Source: shortXXvids

Keywords

Bahner, Beate Bahner, BioNTech, Cominarty, EMA, European Medicines Agency, germany, imprisonment, Legal Opinion, Pfizer, prison, punishment

Back to All Cases