Case #0036
In my view, the proceedings directed against me are directly connected with my political activity as a city councillor and member of the State Parliament, my public criticism of the coronavirus policy and my work as a physician during the coronavirus period. In particular, criticism of lockdowns, bans on demonstrations, mandatory masking and the products referred to as vaccines led to a multitude of criminal, professional-disciplinary and administrative proceedings.
Throughout the entire coronavirus period my practice remained open. I turned no one away on account of their vaccination status. After examination I issued mask-exemption certificates where I considered this medically justified; likewise vaccination-exemption certificates. I made these decisions not as a politician. I made them as a physician. My yardstick was the individual patient – not the political directive, not public sentiment, not the fear of sanctions.
The products referred to as vaccines I administered at the start of the campaign – exclusively after detailed information about known risks, open questions and missing long-term data. When, as it seemed to me, some of the feared side effects were confirmed, I discontinued their use and devoted myself to people who associated health complaints with them.
I have always acted to the best of my knowledge and conscience – in keeping with my understanding of medical ethics and my faith in Jesus Christ.
Partly solidarity, partly considerable distancing. In particular, the criticism of the products referred to as vaccines led to conflicts within the medical profession; he was at times criticised for having administered these products at all – which happened exclusively after detailed information and at the express wish of the patients.
Wide-ranging regional and national coverage, at times critical or dismissive. Later international coverage, in particular by The Gateway Pundit.
Despite all the proceedings, all the setbacks and all the health burdens, I do not intend to withdraw from public life. After completing my rehabilitation, I opened a new general practice on 1 July 2026.
I have always acted to the best of my knowledge and conscience – in keeping with my understanding of medical ethics and my faith in Jesus Christ. My goal remains a medicine that is oriented towards the individual person: a medicine of responsibility, a medicine of conscience.
The sentence that gave my report its title describes my stance to this day: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
In the 2022 report of the Baden-Württemberg Office for the Protection of the Constitution I was named – as a prominent representative of a so-called “delegitimisation of the state relevant to constitutional protection”. The basis for this included publications in which I had disseminated statements by the Jewish Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav.
For me this was one of the most remarkable events of the entire coronavirus period: a Holocaust survivor publicly warned of authoritarian developments, an elected representative disseminated these statements – and was thereupon named in the report on the protection of the constitution.
In the course of the following years I was confronted with a multitude of criminal, professional-disciplinary and administrative proceedings. The allegations concerned political statements, demonstrations, social media, certificates, satire and parliamentary speeches. Even before the major criminal cases, numerous fine and regulatory-offence proceedings were conducted against me, which caused considerable financial burdens and a considerable expenditure of time.
In March 2023, in the first major criminal case, I was convicted to 485 day-fine units; the total penalty amounted to €72,500. As I recall, the presiding judge herself described the amount of this sum as extraordinary, indeed absurd – yet imposed it nonetheless. In December 2023 a further conviction followed before the Stuttgart Local Court, to 90 day-fine units or €13,500.
The main proceedings finally became legally binding after almost a year: my appeal was dismissed, and the public prosecutor’s office – which had sought a prison sentence – withdrew its own appeal. A complaint, an appeal on points of law and an objection concerning the right to be heard all remained unsuccessful. A constitutional complaint against the judgment is now pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. Several further proceedings are still open; the litigation, lawyer’s and court costs keep growing.
In November 2022 the most extensive criminal proceedings before the Stuttgart Local Court began. During this time my mobile phone was seized. Later, an order by the public prosecutor’s office was found in the files, according to which direct force could, if necessary, be used to unlock the device via facial recognition. The order expressly provided that my head could be held in place and my eyelids opened. This episode was among the most disturbing experiences of my life.
In parallel, proceedings were conducted before the Medical Association’s professional tribunal, with a hearing in February 2024 and the appeal proceedings in July 2024. Three charges stood against me:
At first instance I was convicted, for the challenged diagnosis and the “threat”, to a €1,500 fine. On appeal only the last charge remained – a €750 fine, plus fees of over €2,500.
The information in this case report comes from the affected person themselves. The editorial team verifies whether a criminal or professional prosecution has taken place; it cannot verify the factual accuracy of every single statement. Responsibility for the correctness of the account lies with the respective author.
Case #0012
Accusation: Issuing false medical certificates (mask exemptions), not wearing a mask during a demonstration
Case #0028
Accusation: Issuance of inaccurate medical certificates (mask exemption certificates)
Case #0010
Accusation: Issuance of 38 mask exemption certificates, public criticism of face coverings