Court witness, Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer (who has decades of experience in clinical research and works as a freelance medical writer) wrote an opinion: [10]

A political verdict that makes a mockery of all evidence and logic.

It was probably already the case that some of the mainstream narratives were refuted. At least the one about the overloading of the intensive care units.

In any case, the presiding judge was already more restrictive in June and allowed only a few arguments from the complainants’ experts. Thus, Prof Kämmerer was the last from this side to be allowed to give a presentation. All further presentations were rejected. The experts could only ask questions to the experts of RKI and PEI. And even there the presiding judge kept a strict time management. And my impression was: The trickier the questions to the government representatives, the more the questions were hindered or prevented.

Dr. Mentzer from the PEI, for example, only knew how to stammer in response to the question of how many 2500 by 2500 was that one would have to ask a statistician about this, and that he was only a medical doctor. The representative of the RKI, Dr. Wichmann, could at least at one point make the claim that the vaccination effectiveness against severe courses was 99%. If I remember correctly, this statement remained more or less uncommented in a jumble of many others.

At the July 7 hearing, PEI statistician Dr. Dr. Oberle was to be questioned about the safety analyses, first and foremost the OvE and SMR (more details in these TKP articles from May and June). Because Dr. Oberle had reported a positive PCR test, the questioning took place by video link. Prof. Kuhbandner had taken on the task of teasing out a number from her as to when her SMR analysis would show a signal in terms of deaths. After much back and forth, she admitted that this would only be true at a number well above 70,000 for one vaccine alone, i.e., when a medium-sized city was wiped out. .. And she vehemently defended the per-dose analysis, but that increases the denominator by about three times, so reduces the signal even further.

The court allowed the attorneys to question the relevant expert from PEI, Dr. Wagner. In fact, the judge allowed a longer questioning here, as long as they did not specifically go into the nitty-gritty. But when Prof. Matysik asked concrete questions, the judge started pushing again. At least Prof. Matysik was able to tease out a few surprising points:

• The allowed pH range for Comirnaty is 6.9 to 7.9, which is surprisingly wide, since the final product is buffered and should therefore be set to point. The wide range indicates significant quality issues in the manufacturing process.
• PEI does not have a Raman microscope that would allow detection of graphene or graphene hydroxide.
• In general, PEI does not pay attention to any external reports such as the findings on graphene or graphene hydroxide or the “how bad is my batch” page.
• No “next generation sequencing” is done.

Unfortunately, the question was lost as to whether PEI also checks peptide expression of modRNA or DANN. Such an analysis would be important to determine the quality of action of the vaccine. Even then, however, “next generation sequencing” would have been more than appropriate. It is possible that the PEI can refer back to the licensed specification, which does not provide for this. But then one has to ask: Why did PEI, as an essential EMA member, not insist on such analyses? Without them, neither the identity nor the integrity of the modRNA or DNA sequences can really be assessed.

It was also important to note that although PEI receives information on batches in addition to the adverse reaction reports, it has not yet evaluated them. Also a significant deficiency.

The court criticized the quality of the data collection, but said the PEI’s signal finding, despite some question marks, could not be faulted on the whole.

It ordered the Federal Ministry of Defense to present a benefit-risk analysis before further booster vaccinations and to introduce a vaccination evaluation within the Bundeswehr.

The Berliner Zeitung reports: [11]

According to Presiding Judge Richard Häußler, in November, when the decree came, the coronalage was “very serious.” Incidences had risen, he said, and there had been an increase in the compared to even more dangerous delta variant prevailed, and there was concern that hospital capacity would be insufficient. There had also been a warning signal to politicians through the recommendations of experts and scientists, so that they had seen the need for vaccination of soldiers.

The court also agrees with the Federal Constitutional Court when it declared mandatory vaccination in nursing and medicine to be constitutional at the end of April.

“We agreed with this assessment,” Häußler said. According to the court, vaccination could only reduce the risk of infection and transmission, but at the same time reduce the risk of a severe course by 90 percent.

The Court agreed with the assessment that the vaccination still had a relevant protective effect even against the omicron variant. The positive effect clearly outweighs the risk. According to the current recommendation of the Robert Koch Institute, this also applies to younger adults under 60 years of age.

However, the ministry must evaluate and monitor the vaccination requirement, the court demanded. Standing orders must always be reviewed to determine whether they continue to be proportionate and discretionary in light of changed circumstances. Therefore, before ordering further booster vaccinations, the findings must be re-evaluated, because the dangerousness of the virus is decreasing and the currently available vaccines are becoming less effective.

Häußler said at the announcement of the verdict that side effects could occur and that there were gaps in the data collection – but that the court concluded in its evaluation that the benefits of the vaccination outweighed the disadvantages. He had already made it clear at the start of the hearing in May that the decision in the present case concerned only the two officers who had filed the lawsuit. Other cases involving soldiers from different units are pending before the Federal Administrative Court.

After the ruling, one of the two plaintiffs, Marcus B., said he had to “acknowledge” it.

The other plaintiff, Christian B., left open whether he would now be vaccinated. “I need a summons for a vaccination,” he said, and did not rule out dismissal.

Media