Juli 2019:
The exceptionally highly qualified physician, scientist and entrepreneur had been running a thriving general practice in Zürich since July 2019 with approx. 2,000 satisfied regular patients. The practice participates in the GP-centred care model of several health insurance companies.
2020 – 2022:
During the
COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onwards, the physician successfully treated hundreds of patients with a
SARS-CoV-2 infection. None of his patients had to be hospitalised due to
COVID-19, and none died from the consequences of this viral infection.
During this period, the physician actively participated in medical and scientific education about the lack of medical and scientific evidence and recommendations for public health measures such as the mandatory use of face masks, toxic spike protein mRNA lipofections (so-called «COVID-19» vaccination),
PCR tests and lockdowns.
The appellant belongs to a group of physicians practising in Switzerland who fought against excessive, non-evidence-based measures and even founded and supported an association for this purpose:
https://www.aletheia-scimed.ch/de/
He also publicly pointed out some harmful effects of the so-called
COVID-19 measures on certain patients. In these discussions, he clearly expressed his criticism of the exaggerations, ineffectiveness and risks of such measures for some patients, as well as the disregard of scientific evidence, the interference of certain government authorities in the doctor-patient relationship, and the disregard of physicians’ therapeutic freedom and patients’ wishes.
Oktober 2020:
In October 2020, the physician criticised the officially presented coronavirus case numbers for the Canton of Zürich at a physicians’ panel in the city of Zürich. The presentation showed a rising straight line on a logarithmic scale over the entire observation period. According to the cantonal physician, this numerical dynamic did not represent exponential growth. The case number dynamics commented on by the cantonal physician were said to be an expression of the efficiency of cantonal control measures, which had allegedly prevented exponential growth of cases. The appellant pointed out that a straight line on a logarithmic scale represents exponential growth, which is typical of a viral epidemic, calling into question both the effectiveness of the cantonal measures and the scientific competence of the cantonal physician. This statement by the appellant triggered an outraged reaction from the president of the Zurich Medical Society (AGZ), Mr Josef Widler, who was present, and the cantonal physician remained silent.
This means an important background is missing that triggered the arbitrary proceedings against the physician, namely that during a lecture a personal conflict arose between cantonal physician Meier and the physician, which later led to the opening of proceedings, which in turn later led to the revocation of the medical practice licence – a manoeuvre to be understood as somewhere between official arbitrariness and defamation.
Okt. 20 – Nov. 21:
Between October 2020 and November 2021, three patient complaints were received by the Cantonal Medical Service, then the supervisory authority over physicians, against the physician for non-compliance with the protective and hygiene measures against COVID-19 in the medical practice, to which the physician responded in each case. This case was satisfactorily resolved through the physician’s detailed explanations and closed by the Health Directorate of Zürich without any sanctions against the physician.
23.01.2021:
On 23.01.2021, an article appeared in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung with the title “Mein Arzt hat gesagt” (“My doctor said”), which anonymously criticised the physician for his explanations: “(…) What do we learn from this story? My colleague might have been better off addressing his letter to the health authorities. They are unlikely to be indifferent when physicians torpedo the national vaccination strategy with unprofessional behaviour.”
Juni 2021:
At the beginning of June 2021, the physician received a threat of criminal charges from the Health Directorate of Zürich. This concerned a report by unknown persons alleging non-compliance with certain COVID-19 measures such as wearing face masks and COVID-19 vaccination. This despite the fact that the physician had already explained in detail in 2020, in response to a similar complaint, that he was correctly complying with the COVID-19 measures and that he and an assistant had a face mask exemption. The aforementioned NZZ article was expressly used against the physician in the complaint.
Okt. – Dez. 2021:
Between October 2021 and December 2021, the physician issued three medical certificates exempting from mask wearing and/or the so-called COVID-19 vaccination (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mRNA lipofection) on health grounds for two adults and one minor patient respectively. For all three patients, medical histories, laboratory and specialist diagnoses were available that provided medically comprehensible explanations for the exemptions:
. Young adult patient «M. H.»: mask intolerance due to neurodermatitis – also called atopic eczema;
. Middle-aged adult female patient «B. V.»: mask intolerance as well as contraindication for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mRNA lipofection (so-called «COVID-19 vaccination») due to increased risk of a COVID-19 post-vaccination syndrome in the patient with pre-existing metabolic syndrome, including obesity, insulin resistance and cardiovascular diseases;
. Minor female patient «V. C.»: mask intolerance due to severe childhood bronchial asthma with polyglobulia as an expression of breathing difficulty.
No «convenience certificates» and no concrete endangerment of patients (on the contrary: the patients were correctly treated and protected from risks and side effects):
. Face mask exemptions on medical grounds are globally recognised, standard medical measures. A COVID-19 vaccination exemption (SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mRNA lipofection) is justified as described above.
The issue of forgoing highly sensitive SARS-CoV-2 tests on patients, such as the PCR test with a high risk of false-positive results due to carry-over contamination of DNA, and the associated disadvantage to affected patients, has been known for a long time and is widely discussed, and the physician, as a Doctor of Medicine (1994), Privatdozent in Genetics (2000), first author of various peer-reviewed original scientific publications and founder of companies in the field of molecular genetics, has demonstrated “hands on” medical expertise in this field.
This eliminates any justified suspicion of issuing «convenience certificates» or «convenience exemptions» or of endangering public health. On the contrary: the patients were correctly treated and protected from risks and side effects.
The employers of the two above-mentioned adult patients and the school principal of the above-mentioned minor patient filed complaints against the said exemptions with the Health Directorate of Zürich.
2022:
In 2022, the Health Directorate of Zürich / the Office of Public Health of Zürich opened supervisory proceedings. Since 2022, there has been an intensive written exchange between the physician and the Health Directorate with the aim of clarifying the facts.
18.07.2023:
The physician submitted the requested patient files – initially on 18.07.2023 with data protection-compliant redactions – (whereby he redacted personal data of the patients from the period after the issuance of the certificate; for the period up to and including the date of issuance of the certificate, the patient files were submitted completely and unredacted).
After obtaining patient consent, further information supplementing the files already submitted with the lawyer’s letter of 18.07.2023 was submitted unredacted with the lawyer’s registered letter of 12.08.2024.
18.10.2024:
Without a prior oral hearing, the Health Directorate revoked the medical practice licence on 18.10.2024; at the same time, the suspensive effect was withdrawn. This was justified by the issuance of mask and vaccination exemptions for the three named patients during the past COVID-19 pandemic. In its supervisory ruling of 18.10.2024, the Office of Public Health dismissed the physician’s arguments. Rather, it alleged a case of multiple and “serious violation of professional medical duties, respectively the duty to practise the profession carefully and conscientiously”. The Health Directorate justified its action with its own interpretations that the physician had allegedly not cooperated in the investigation and that it had lost trust in him.
The revocation of the medical practice licence was critically commented upon publicly and in various legal circles, including with reference to disproportionate administrative practice and the absence of judicial review.
Seit 2022:
Immediate consequences of the ongoing medical practice licence revocation proceedings:
. since 2021: chronic psychological burden on the physician caused by the Health Directorate,
. 2024: blocking of the physician’s ZSR number (concordat number),
. revenue/fee collapse,
. indebtedness of the medical practice and the physician,
. loss or suspension of all insurance coverage,
. 2025: termination of the practice lease,
. 2025: termination of insurances,
. 2025: termination of the contract with Swisscom Health (CuraMed/CuraBill),
. 2025: termination of the contract with Labor Analytica,
. 2025: termination of a practice car lease
Seit 2024:
Various appeals were filed by the physician against the above-mentioned ruling, which were systematically rejected.
09.12.2024:
In its statement on the physician’s application to restore the suspensive effect, the Office of Public Health of Zürich stated:
»This reveals, among other things, the criminal energy that the appellant brings and displays in the exercise of his profession« (page 4/6).
“This also speaks for the particular criminal energy of the appellant and for the fact that effective supervision cannot be assumed in the future either” (page 5/6).
08.01.2025:
The criminal complaint filed by the physician against four officials of the Health Directorate and two officials of the Office of Public Health for arbitrariness and abuse of power was accepted and is currently being processed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office II.
12.03.2025:
The criminal complaint filed by the Office of Public Health on 15.01.2025 against the physician on suspicion of violation of professional secrecy, after he had published various letters and statements in connection with the pending proceedings concerning the licence revocation on the website of his practice, inadequately redacting the names of patients and their employers, was not accepted by the Zürich Public Prosecutor’s Office: “For the offence of violation of professional secrecy to apply, intent is required from a subjective perspective. Such intent is in this case to be denied from the outset. The accused made every effort to redact the names and these are, when the documents are viewed online – where they were, it should be noted, also placed – not legible. The accused cannot be blamed and in no way sufficiently charged with having knowingly accepted that the names would become decipherable if one were to print out the documents and hold them against the light. Rather, what we have here – if anything – is negligence on the part of the accused, which is not punishable.”
26.06.2025:
Judgment of the Administrative Court of Zürich: The court classified the three exemptions as a “systematic approach” and derived from this a permanent lack of trustworthiness; milder measures were deemed “unsuitable due to lack of insight”. The Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Health Directorate.
31.07.2025:
Appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court filed with the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal insofar as it could be considered.
21.10.2025:
State liability and satisfaction claim against the Canton of Zürich filed with the Finance Directorate: compensation in the amount of CHF 500,000 as well as damages of CHF 150,000 plus CHF 2.5 million. Proceedings pending.
06.11.2025:
The Health Directorate once again rejected the physician’s appeal, citing unchanged the well-known arguments of allegedly uncooperative behaviour, alleged lack of trustworthiness, alleged convenience certificates and alleged endangerment of the public.
16.12.2025:
The Administrative Court of Zürich did not consider the physician’s appeal, as it was in its view insufficiently substantiated.
05.02.2026:
The Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne accepted the appeal filed on 31 January 2026 against the non-consideration decision of the Administrative Court and took a procedurally unusual step: it instructed the Health Directorate, the Office of Public Health and the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zürich to comment within a set deadline on the question of suspensive effect. The fact that the Federal Supreme Court expressly requested all cantonal instances to submit statements is interpreted by accompanying jurists as an indication that the appeal is not considered manifestly unfounded.
Case #0004
Case #0037
Case #0007