Politically Persecuted Doctors in Germany
Doctors fined and imprisoned for issuing mask exemptions for their patients? Yes - such is the state of affairs in Germany, birthplace of the Nuremberg Code.
Germany is rapidly becoming notorious for human rights violations against lawyers and doctors who questioned the COVID policies. German doctors recently appealed to Robert F. Kennedy Jr for outside intervention. Kennedy’s welcome response can be found at the end of this article. Below is an update by persecuted German doctor Walter Weber about the situation.
The Highly Respected Ethical Doctor, Walter Weber, Explains The Current Situation In Germany…
It is little known - at least not to our Health Minister Nina Warken, hard to believe, unimaginable in a constitutional state, but nevertheless true:
Doctors who, during the so-called Corona period, did not recognise the state narrative of the “greatest pandemic of all time” (GRÖPAZ), contradicted it, refuted it, and reduced it to absurdity, were mercilessly defamed, hunted, existentially threatened, and punished with imprisonment by the state and its institutions.
On October 27, 2024, Elke Bodderas wrote in Welt am Sonntag:
“Exemption from the mask requirement: wave of lawsuits against doctors.”
She wrote:
“During the coronavirus pandemic, numerous doctors issued mask exemptions. More than 1,000 judgments have been handed down as a result.”
These ranged from a few hundred euros for administrative offences to three years in prison. A lawyer told me: The state allowed exceptions in its regulations, but then punished them mercilessly and arbitrarily. Likewise, the state punished patients who presented such certificates mercilessly and arbitrarily. The number certainly runs into the thousands, if not tens of thousands.
The worst consequences for doctors due to this pressure and the associated public defamation:
- at least seven deaths known to us.
In addition, many doctors and patients have emigrated because they felt threatened by violations of their fundamental rights.
[Health Minister] BGM Warken could have known this - if she had participated in the 4th Corona Symposium in the Bundestag from November 7–8, 2025.
Almost all (!) doctors who issued such certificates were subjected to one or more house searches, with the “front-runner” having eight (!) house searches. This began as early as June 2020. These searches often involved brute force and began as early as 6 a.m. Doors were broken down, and injuries were caused by police officers.
At the same time, BGM Warken speaks of “constitutionally protected medical freedom of therapy” and claims that “those who did not want to offer vaccination were not liable to prosecution, nor did they have to fear sanctions.”
The doctors were obviously meant to be silenced and made compliant. Was this successful? There was no support from the medical associations - quite the contrary.
Double prosecution through chamber proceedings after criminal proceedings became almost the norm, in some cases resulting in the revocation of medical licenses. The courts were deaf to our arguments and to scientific and medical facts, and mostly issued politically compliant judgments.
What is the state of the free medical profession and freedom of therapy when, instead of their own Health Minister, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. takes up the cause of German doctors and openly addresses what is being hushed up in this country: the persecution of doctors who remained true to the Hippocratic Oath and put the well-being of their patients first by issuing certificates for mask exemptions?
On January 10, 2026, RFK Jr. responded and sent a message to BGM Warken. Among other things, he stated:
“Reports from Germany show that the government is disregarding the autonomy of patients and restricting people’s ability to make medical decisions based on their own beliefs.”
He continued:
“I have learned that more than 1,000 German doctors and thousands of their patients are currently being prosecuted and punished for issuing exemptions from wearing masks or COVID-19 vaccinations during the pandemic.”
He further referred to court cases in which doctors were charged and convicted, for example, for issuing certificates without examining patients:
“When a government criminalizes doctors for advising their patients, it crosses a line that free societies have always considered sacrosanct.”
This message was a thunderclap in the deafening silence of local officials and echoed through almost all newspapers in Germany under the headline:
“Kennedy attacks the federal government.”
Within a few hours, Kennedy’s message had several million views - and said more about the persecution of doctors in Germany than the federal government has published on the subject in the last six years: namely, nothing.
On the same day, January 10, 2026, the response from Health Minister Nina Warken was published on the BGM website.
Her statements do not address the central allegations but instead contain several untrue factual claims, which is why Tom Lausen refers to them as FAKE NEWS:
Doctors accused of issuing mask-exemption certificates based on exemptions in state coronavirus regulations were not convicted of document forgery under Section 267 StGB (identity fraud) or fraud under Section 263 StGB, but solely under Section 278 StGB for issuing incorrect health certificates (e.g., BGH 5 StR 335/25; BayerObLG 206 StR 76/23).
Doctors accused of issuing incorrect vaccination certificates in vaccination passports were also not convicted under Section 267 StGB or Section 263 StGB, but exclusively under Section 278 StGB for issuing incorrect health certificates and for incorrect documentation under the IfSG (e.g., BGH 4 StR 75/25).
The BMG and Ms. Nina Warken must immediately refrain from renewed public discrediting of convicted doctors through such “fake news” if she does not wish to demonstrate ignorance - and thus incompetence.
Law professor Dr. Martin Schwab adds that the minister’s statements demonstrate a glaring lack of awareness of the problem - one might add, also a lack of expertise.
Lawyer Ralf Ludwig writes:
“With the help of the German judiciary, more than 1,000 doctors have been and are being prosecuted and criminalized for acting in accordance with their oath. The formal pretext of ‘false certificates’ was chosen to criminalize their professional judgment. The tide is turning—also internationally. The actions of German politicians and authorities are being investigated under international criminal law.”
What happens now?
We - the doctors who have been persecuted and convicted under these pretexts - demand:
the discontinuation of all ongoing proceedings,
the immediate cessation of prosecutions related to mask or vaccination certificates, and
full rehabilitation.
We will not allow ourselves to be silenced. We invoke the law, the Hippocratic Oath, and our medical professional code of conduct. We demand the constitutionally protected freedom of medical therapy that Ms. Warken herself refers to.
We do not want to be henchmen of state medicine - this contradicts our professional code of conduct.
The Nuremberg Code applies. Informed consent applies - otherwise, every intervention constitutes bodily harm.
Like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., we demand the decriminalization of doctors who advised their patients to the best of their knowledge and conscience.
We demand freedom of therapy in accordance with the Geneva Oath.
Another Freedom Fighter, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. Still in prison in Germany unfortunately.
@drreinerfuellmich
https://substack.com/@drreinerfuellmich
The Nuremberg Code
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-code
Nuremberg Code
The Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s decision in the case of the United States v Karl Brandt et al. includes what is now called the Nuremberg Code, a ten point statement delimiting permissible medical experimentation on human subjects. According to this statement, humane experimentation is justified only if its results benefit society and it is carried out in accord with basic principles that “satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.”
—“Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
https://research.unc.edu/human-research-ethics/resources/ccm3_019064/