Doctors Censure Case

Doctors Censure Case

Doctors Censure Case

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


Back to All Cases

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



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]



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…



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]



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:



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



  1. Passau judge unblocks suppression of vax critical information
  2. Landesaerztekammer Bayern verliert klage gegen den arzt dr ronny weikl
  3. Telegram: rechtsanwaeltinbeatebahner/15634
  4. Lawyer Beate Bahner explains the Dr. Ronald Weikl verdict -Feb 9th 2023



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




Dr White Censure Case

Re: Legality of Censuring & Ostracizing Employment based on giving professional expert opinions regarding Covid


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: (Hearing) Nov 4 2021
  • Location: Royal Courts of Justice, London, England
  • Court: The High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court
  • Case #: CO/3095/2021
  • Plaintiff: Dr. Sam White
  • Defendant: The General Medical Council
  • Trial Type: Decision Review of the Interim Orders Tribunal
  • Judge: The Honourable Justice Dove
  • Status: Final Ruling
  • Verdict: For The Plaintiff

** This case was reviewed & edited by the plaintiff Dr White



Dr. Sam White is a UK General Practitioner with over 17 years experience. He now practices independently in functional medicine. In 2020, he was working as a doctor and partner in a Hampshire medical practice. Shortly after the announcement of the pandemic he became concerned about the entire government narrative, and the medical measures being recommended by NHS England for Covid19. He felt it was antithetical to all of his prior understanding of what medicine is, and should be.

He realized that the testing was grossly unreliable and the agenda was moving very rapidly toward experimental anti-Covid immunization injections, referred to as vaccines- developed and brought onto the market under EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). Dr. White’s own research into these gene based therapies had led him to believe they were not safe or efficacious as advertised, and that to administer them to his patients would cause a personal ethical conflict with his doctor’s Hippocratic Oath to ‘first, do no harm’. There had never been a successful Coronavirus vaccine brought to market and the SARS-CoV-1 animal studies (in which all of the animals developed antibody dependent enhancement) had convinced him that the proposed vaccine schedule would be extremely dangerous. He did not want any part of it.

In these circumstances, Dr. White felt he had to resign from his practice in early 2021. He had already written detailed submissions on his research in his five year re-validation and re-licensing with the GMC in late 2020. He had said he would resign if experimental mRNA vaccines were introduced, while safe and proven therapeutics continued to be suppressed. Neither the NHS or GMC took any notice whatsoever and they certainly were not concerned about the content of what he had written. In April 2021, Dr White’s re-licensing for a further 5 years was approved by a ‘Responsible Officer’ acting on behalf of the GMC. Dr White’s concerns only became a problem for NHS England and the GMC when he subsequently posted a video on social media (see below) in June 2021 (1) explaining to the public why he resigned. Dr White’s reasons for resigning only became of concern to the regulator once over 1 million members of the public were privy to his views. Dr White was first suspended by NHS England by emergency order (by the same ‘Responsible Officer’ who just two months prior had recommended his re-licensing) and subsequently also by the GMC.

Among other reasons he explained that …

He could no longer work in his previous roles ‘because of the lies’ surrounding the NHS and government approach to the pandemic which have been ‘so vast’ he could no longer ‘stomach or tolerate’ them. He claimed doctors and nurses were ‘having their hands tied behind their backs’ preventing them from using treatments that had been established as being effective both as prophylaxis from Covid19 infections and as treatments for it.

Once this video went viral,  both the NHS and GMC made allegations that Dr White might be suffering a profound mental health disorder and being disinhibited. They felt able to make such allegations, without any medical assessment whatsoever.

Dr White’s law firm wrote a complaint letter (3) to the Chief Executive of NHS England on 2nd July stating (among other points) that:

My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been

victimized and harassed for telling the truth by the organization you head.

Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice

without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.

The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you

must. I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.

No reply was ever received to this letter.

Dr. White’s license to practice was later reinstated, but made conditional on a number of measures with instructions from the Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) hearing on 17th Aug 2021. Prior to this hearing, Dr White had submitted hundreds of pages of evidence to the tribunal including both expert witness testimony and peer reviewed literature detailing all of the reasoning for each of his claims. By comparison, the GMC relied merely on 18 (out of over 1 million) anonymized complainants citing allegations of ‘misinformation-’ without any evidence that it was indeed, ‘misinformation.’ The IOT commenced proceedings that day by announcing that they were not there to determine ‘matters of fact.’ Despite this, they sided entirely with the GMC, repeating the claim that Dr White was citing misinformation.

These conditions required that he refrain from posting further information about his pandemic views on social media for a period of at least 18 months. The orders were vague and not specified. His solicitor sought clarification but this was denied.

The controversial conditions at the heart of the IOT to impose conditions on his registration were as follows:

“4. He must not use social media to put forward or share any views about the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated aspects.

5. He must seek to remove any social media posts he has been responsible for or has shared relating to his views of the Covid19 pandemic and its associated aspects.”  (6)

In several respects, treatment by his professional body bore remarkable similarities to the fate of Swiss cardiologist, Dr. Thomas Binder, who spoke out in April 2020 and was arrested and subjected to a psychiatric examination while held in custody for one week (2 & 5).

Although Dr. White has fully explained, for example during testimony given to the German Corona Investigative Committee (4), that his views are evidence based and founded on his considerable scientific research, the GMC maintained that he was spreading misinformation that could present a risk to patients.



First case in the UK to overturn an illegal gag order placed on a UK doctor censured by his professional body for posting his scientifically researched views on the Covid crisis on social media.


Plaintiff’s (Claimant’s) Argument

Dr White’s lawyers, led by Francis Hoar instructed by PJH Law, appealed under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, although the law may be subject to conditions or restrictions necessary in a democratic society. Surely doctors should never be silenced in a democratic society? 

Dr White said: “If I lose my ability to speak freely, so will other doctors.” (5)

Important to understand is that the rights and wrongs of Dr. White’s treatment were argued not on the basis of the views he expressed but on the basis of his fundamental human right to free speech.


Defendant’s Argument

The GMC’s argument was represented by Alexis Hearnden

The defendants argument was based on the assertion that Dr. White was spreading ‘misleading information’ that could present a risk to patient health. This extract from the Judge’s summation of the court decision is illustrative of the content:

“- Through a social media video, Dr White spread misinformation and inaccurate details about the Coronavirus and how it is diagnosed and treated, including saying the vaccine is a form of genetic manipulation which can cause serious illness and death and that he advised against wearing masks.


Relevant Prior Judgements

…More information is needed…



The judgement passed by The Honourable Justice Dove on 3rd Dec 2021 restored Dr White’s freedom of speech and the IOT conditions were nullified (5)

(See below for) Sam White’s video to his followers, 3rd Dec. 2021  (7)



This case is not over as far as Dr. White and his lawyers are concerned. Dr. White is  determined to be vindicated in his evidence based scientific assessment of what is the best medical practice for Covid19 prevention / treatment. His lawyers have sent a number of questions addressed to the CEO of NHS England. (8)

This case is not over as far as Dr. White and his lawyers are concerned. Dr. White is determined to be vindicated in his evidence based scientific assessment of what is good for his patients.


His lawyers have sent a (a letter with a) number of questions addressed to the CEO of NHS England … Amanda Pritchard explaining how many of his June predictions had now been proved right. (8)

The letter (8) says that:

the public have had their health, wellbeing and lives put at risk because the NHS adhered to government diktat by cutting the role of primary care and keeping GPs out of the loop with Covid cases throughout 2020. As a consequence of that decision, early diagnosis and treatment was denied to many patients and prophylactic therapeutic treatments, used elsewhere to great effect, were being denied to NHS patients.’

The 12-page letter goes on to say how the introduction of the vaccine passport will compromise informed consent and could prevent patients exercising free will in consenting to vaccination.

It also criticizes masks and says: ‘Wearing face coverings in health care settings had not been properly risk-assessed. There is evidence that masks do harm, particularly children.’ (7)

Dr White’s focus will now: be on protecting children from the experimental mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna, as they can cause myocarditis.

He said: ‘The outcomes for myocarditis are not “mild”, as the government like to tell us. It’s a condition that has a 50 per cent mortality rate after five years and 20 per cent after one year. It is extremely serious. It can kill and is a problem for healthy young men who get the vaccine who are at virtually no risk from Covid.

But the guilt has now lifted. I can tell people what’s going on and share the peer review evidence I have. One of the most important bits of information is if you’ve had Covid, your immunity is long lasting and robust, whereas Pfizer vaccine immunity for example, begins to wane after six months. People should be told this before they are vaccinated as part of informed consent, but it is generally ignored.’


Further, a complaint letter (9) was sent on 7th Dec addressed to Charlie Massey, Chief Executive of the General Medical Council. The complaint is about a Doctor Hilary Jones registered with the GMC, who regularly appears on Good Morning Britain news show. The specific question is whether Dr Jones made misleading and untrue statements which posed a risk to patient safety and whether the GMC took sufficient action to establish this or not following an anonymous complaint (E2-7599ZL) lodged with them on 12th August 2021. (ref link).

Further actions are also planned soon.


Further Research



Dr. White Interview -Jan 16, 2022

source: TLA-Vagabond

Dr. White’s Social Media Post, June 4 2021

**banned video**

source: shortXXvids

Dr White’s Testimony to Corona-Ausschuss

source: longXXvids

Dr White Announces Verdict

source: shortXXvids

Back to All Cases