A doctor in prison — because she protected her patients — “The justice system is no longer doing its job”

In conversation with lawyer Wilfried Schmitz about the case of Dr. med. Bianca Witzschel on May 11, 2026

By Nicole Hammer, Wissensgeist.TV

A doctor. Forty years in service to her patients. Today she’s in prison. Her house is gone. Her practice is gone. Her dog died while she was incarcerated. Her crime: She protected her patients.

The Geneva Declaration, which precedes the preamble to the medical code of ethics, states: “Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties.”

That is exactly what Dr. Bianca Witzschel did. For this, she is being prosecuted by the German state.

Lawyer Wilfried Schmitz has been defending her since March 23, 2026. In the following interview, he talks about the background of the case, the failure of the German justice system — and why this case concerns every one of us.

Mr. Schmitz, Dr. Witzschel has dedicated her life to protecting her patients—and is in prison for it. You have only represented her since March 23, 2026. Nearly all of her previous defense attorneys have terminated the mandate—for what reasons? And what personally motivated you to take on this case?

Wilfried Schmitz: Immediately after accepting the mandate, I terminated my other three privately retained defense mandates as instructed, so that the defense could be completely rebuilt. The court-appointed lawyer remains. Therefore, it is not the case that all previous defense attorneys terminated their respective mandates of their own accord.

Of course, I immediately felt deeply sorry for Dr. Witzschel when the reports of her persecution began. From the very beginning, I had perceived her as a wonderful person who lost everything because of her integrity.

I accepted this mandate because, as a defense attorney, my prior experience and knowledge allow me to contribute precisely the expertise needed to exonerate Dr. Witzschel. Ultimately, only a lawyer who has critically and thoroughly examined the relevant issues for an extended period—particularly the lack of evidence for mandatory masks and testing, and the futility and danger of modRNA injections—can effectively refute allegations such as those at issue here.

My previous practical experience, which includes the defense of the physician Heinrich Habig, and the books I have published on this subject, demonstrate that I possess the necessary prior knowledge.

How did this indictment even come about — who initiated the investigation, and when did Dr. Witzschel learn that the German state had targeted her?

Wilfried Schmitz: The Saxon State Medical Association (SLÄK) began putting pressure on her as early as April 2021, after she issued a mask exemption certificate for a primary school child. Following several letters, she finally received a formal reprimand dated October 13, 2021, for her failure to respond to this exemption certificate. The Saxon State Directorate then suspended her medical license on February 1, 2022, after receiving several letters from the SLÄK between June and November 2021 concerning 15 professional disciplinary proceedings and complaints, which primarily involved medical certificates for mask exemptions and the existence of medical contraindications to so-called vaccinations. This set the ball rolling.

Dr. Witzschel is a pharmacologist—the ultimate expert. What did she see that politicians didn’t want to see—and why did the court simply ignore this expertise in its verdict?

Wilfried Schmitz: Anyone can easily find information online about the training and qualifications of a specialist in pharmacology and toxicology. My client pointed out to me that this specialist training was significantly more comprehensive and of a higher standard in East Germany. Based on numerous facts and warning signs, she was able to recognize, using this expertise, that the pharmaceutical companies’ approval studies for these modRNA injections were inadequate in every respect and that conditional approval should never have been granted.

In court, it will then be necessary to present in detail the nature of this special knowledge and what specific findings had to convince my client that the conditional approval of these modRNA injections was in every respect an irresponsible experiment with the life and health of countless people.

Since I was not yet represented in the first criminal trial, I cannot definitively answer the question of why the Dresden Regional Court effectively ignored my client’s expertise. In any case, the Regional Court should not have simply stated that she is a specialist in pharmacology and toxicology. Knowing of this specialist qualification, the Regional Court should have, as part of its duty to investigate the facts, determined precisely what this qualification entails. For this qualification includes, among other things, a sound knowledge of the standard procedures of a clinical trial and the approval process.

Was this merely gross negligence on the part of this regional court? Or did they simply prefer not to hear in which respects the conditional approval of the modRNA injections had violated applicable safety standards and relevant regulations? Because the judges would then have had to include that in their ruling—and that would certainly have significantly exonerated my client, at least with regard to the exemption certificates for the modRNA injections. Her certificates were not “incorrect,” not even in this matter.

The court even acknowledged her motive—patient protection. And yet she’s in prison. How do you explain that to an ordinary person?

Wilfried Schmitz: You can no longer explain that to any honest person, because God—so I am convinced—has written in every person’s heart and mind what is right and wrong.

The grounds for the judgment show that the regional court did not even consider whether this motive might also give rise to several grounds for justification and excuse that need to be specifically addressed.

In my book “A Revision for Heinrich”, I addressed all the essential reasons that a doctor in such a context—massive pressure on the entire population to submit to the so-called anti-corona measures and to undergo a highly dangerous experiment with an uncertain outcome involving completely novel genetically engineered modRNA injections—can invoke in his defense when issuing exemption certificates in which he has essentially only made patently true statements: namely, that it is generally—regardless of a person’s state of health—contraindicated to force a person to undergo measures and injections that demonstrably offer no benefit but are always associated with very high health risks.

The system expects remorse—an admission of guilt, a distancing from one’s own actions. Dr. Witzschel refuses. Why—and what will it cost her?

Wilfried Schmitz: My client stands by what she has done. In that sense, she is not denying reality.

But one cannot force her to distance herself from her motive — that she wanted to help people at a time when as many people as possible were to be forced into a highly dangerous experiment with genetic engineering injections in an irresponsible and not only unlawful, but downright criminal manner, using measures that were unsuitable from the outset.

Just take a look at the professional code of conduct of the Saxon State Medical Association. Even before the preamble, the oath is printed there, which states, among other things: “Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties.” — “Under threat” also means: even if professional and criminal penalties could be imposed for adhering to scientific standards and the truth, and for rejecting irresponsible experiments with life and health.

Or look at Section 2, Paragraph 1 of this professional code of conduct, which states: “The physician practices his profession according to his conscience, the principles of medical ethics and humanity. He may not recognize any principles or observe any regulations or instructions that are incompatible with his task or whose observance he cannot be held responsible for.”

Was it – according to the standards of the Hippocratic Oath – “ethical”, “humane”, and justifiable before one’s own “conscience” to administer a conditionally approved genetically engineered injection to people, about whose risks a doctor could not even properly inform them due to a lack of sufficient preclinical and long-term studies?

Was it particularly humane to speak to the public about injections without side effects when – to give just one example – even Pfizer had to admit to 1,223 suspected deaths in its report of February 28, 2021?

Was it humane to impose inherently unsuitable mask and testing requirements on the most vulnerable members of society—the sick, children, and the elderly—in order to break their resistance to these modRNA injections?

In Austria, doctors were acquitted for the same medical certificates. In Switzerland, they received suspended sentences. In Germany, Dr. Witzschel is in prison. What is going on in the German justice system?

Wilfried Schmitz: The justice system is no longer doing its job, and society as a whole needs to reflect on the reasons why. Ultimately, it affects everyone when not only individuals, but entire segments of the population are denied access to justice.

The jurisprudence surrounding the coronavirus pandemic has clearly demonstrated, both in 2020 and since, that the separation of powers no longer functions when a political agenda is to be enforced.

Since 2020, with only a handful of exceptions, German courts have largely refused to critically examine the legitimacy of the so-called anti-corona measures with adequate evidence. Furthermore, the judiciary has, to the best of our knowledge, dismissed all civil claims for damages and compensation brought by individuals harmed by Covid-19 injections. While recent case law has confirmed that manufacturers of Covid-19 injections are obligated under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) to provide injured parties with information on all known side effects, whether the civil courts will ultimately use this information to assess the risk-benefit ratio of these injections negatively and actually award compensation is a completely different matter.

Everyone knows by now that the public prosecutor’s offices are ultimately subject to the authority and control of a politician, namely the Minister of Justice, who also has the power to decide on their further careers.

But the bitter realization since 2020 is that the independence of the courts exists only on paper if the courts no longer question the decisions of the other branches of government and give the impression that they are only allowed to immediately unroll the prayer rug to sing praises to the supposedly unshakable wisdom and integrity of authorities such as the PEI, the RKI and the EMA.

To my knowledge, Switzerland has also seen extremely disproportionate sanctions against critical doctors. And whether the situation in Austria was truly better, or whether we are simply not yet aware of the extent of the persecution of doctors there, I must leave open to question.

Projections indicate up to 5,000 investigations against doctors nationwide—the same pattern across all federal states. Can this still be a coincidence—or is there a coordinated decision behind it to silence critical doctors?

Wilfried Schmitz: This cannot possibly be a coincidence. No one should assume that anymore.

It can also be no coincidence that such criminal proceedings against doctors have repeatedly been staged with utterly absurd security measures—security checkpoints in front of the courtroom, a heavy security presence, demands for and copying of identification documents—just as if the trials were against serious criminals from the realm of organized crime. It is obvious that this grotesque security effort serves only to intimidate the accused doctors and the interested public.

Furthermore, politicians apparently fear that such negotiations could reveal inconvenient truths about the blatant inhumanity and illegality of the entire pharmaceutical lobby’s work under the guise of a so-called anti-corona policy.

It is obvious that the entire way in which such criminal trials against doctors are staged nationwide must have been coordinated at the level of the ministries of justice.

AfD Member of Parliament Dr. Christina Baum has publicly defended Dr. Witzschel. Apart from her, the entire German political establishment remains silent on this case. How do you explain this silence?

Wilfried Schmitz: You have to ask the politicians whether they are simply indifferent, uninformed, partisan and opportunistic, corrupt, or cowardly by nature — or totally unqualified for other reasons to responsibly fulfill a political office.

Because if all courageous doctors across the country are intimidated, criminalized, existentially threatened, and destroyed in this way, then this is a matter for all honest people and should therefore be a top priority, especially for politicians who, after all, worry about our well-being from morning till night.

This should therefore concern every honest politician who is not completely indifferent to the possibility that he and his family members will soon only be treated by doctors who are so compliant that they simply administer everything uncritically that the pharmaceutical industry and corrupt politicians proclaim as a universal cure.

In my opinion, a politician who remains silent on these issues should immediately resign his mandate and never again assume a political office.

Incidentally, a member of the BSW party from the Saxon State Parliament was also present at her prison. I don’t currently know if any other members of parliament were there as well.

Dr. Witzschel was portrayed as a right-wing extremist and Reichsbürger (citizen of the Reich) – her only so-called weapon was a flashlight that, according to an expert opinion, was defective. This portrayal persisted throughout the entire trial. How do you assess this – and what role did it play in the verdict?

Wilfried Schmitz: My client was never a right-wing extremist—the accusation is simply ridiculous. But this label is apparently now being attached to anyone who isn’t left-wing.

A small, often taxpayer-funded left-wing or radical left-wing minority is under the delusion that it can intimidate the vast majority of the population, who do not consider themselves radical left-wing, with such defamatory statements. However, we cannot and must not participate in this discussion here; it leads us too far astray.

The term “Reichsbürger,” which is never clearly defined and is highly vague, is also, in my perception, used excessively. Just look at the attempts by domestic intelligence agencies and courts to define this term precisely—all of them fail.

In practice, however, identifying a citizen as a “Reichsbürger” is akin to a stamp that those affected can no longer effectively remove. This can certainly lead to significant disadvantages—for example, if someone holds a small firearms license, works in the public sector, or if they are portrayed as a “Reichsbürger” in court, thereby implicitly attributing an anti-constitutional ideology to them.

My client has always emphasized that she has always adhered to the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany throughout her life.

In a criminal proceeding where the allegations have nothing to do with a “Reichsbürger scene”, such an accusation has no place anyway — especially when one asks which authorities and politicians have themselves disregarded the laws since 2020 — without any fear of prosecution.

The court tested your client’s bioresonance diagnostics—by applying the device to a piece of cheese, a cleaning rag, and a dead body, in order to ridicule it. Is this sound evidence—or a deliberate attempt to discredit a recognized alternative diagnostic method?

Wilfried Schmitz: In my opinion, this utterly disreputable and downright ludicrous design for examining this quantum resonance analyzer could only have served to discredit my client. The question of what this device is capable of is completely irrelevant to clarifying the facts of the case and to assessing guilt. The question of whether an incorrect certificate was issued has nothing to do with what such a device is capable of.

If the law enforcement authorities were so keen to have a bit of fun, why didn’t they also have experts examine whether masks can protect against viruses, whether RT-qPCR and rapid antigen tests can even detect infection or infectivity, or whether modRNA injections, without relevant efficacy and practically without benefit, can stop a so-called pandemic—and whether, based on their side effect profile, they can even be justified?

Had these questions, which were truly crucial in this criminal case, finally been answered in a scientifically sound manner, then from a scientific point of view one could certainly have had a good laugh at certain scientists who advocated these measures — if the crime committed with these measures and the suffering they caused had not been so immeasurably great.

So why didn’t the prosecutors and judges want to laugh at this madness of measures? That would have been possible based on sound science and a sound expert opinion design.

The patient files seized during the raids on medical practices are now being used against thousands of former patients. Medical confidentiality is a fundamental right. Has the state violated this confidentiality—and if so, will the state itself face legal action?

Wilfried Schmitz: Unfortunately, patient protection is easily undermined when doctors are prosecuted for allegedly issuing false medical certificates, and patients are accused of having induced their doctors to issue such certificates. This is because, during searches of the doctors’ offices, complete patient files are routinely seized as evidence.

Of course, patient files or data stored on electronic media may not be seized if the specific suspicion against the doctor does not relate to them. But that will likely be wishful thinking once the police confiscate all the PCs and other data storage devices from the doctor’s office.

Conclusion: It’s best not to tell your doctor too much if you don’t want your data to eventually fall into the hands of the police or even acquaintances who work there. In practice, simply denouncing a doctor can be enough to undermine data protection and patient privacy.

Dr. Witzschel certified that patients could undergo a saliva test instead of a nasal swab—to protect them. Nasal swabs can cause injuries, chronic pain, and, in documented cases, even meningitis. A doctor protects her patients—and is convicted for it. In your opinion, is that still proportionate?

Wilfried Schmitz: In my opinion, this is already illegal and not just disproportionate — because if a certificate is correct, as it is based on accurate medical considerations, then there is no incorrect certificate and therefore no criminal offense has been committed that could justify a conviction.

Then the examination of criminal liability is already over, and the question of whether there are also grounds for justification and excuse no longer even arises.

Experts such as Prof. Dr. Werner Bergholz and ear, nose and throat doctors have repeatedly pointed out the dangers associated with such nasal swabs in general, and especially when they are not performed professionally — i.e., not by an ENT doctor.

Dr. Witzschel is being persecuted—but what about those who ordered the measures? Has the state itself violated laws—the Basic Law, the Nuremberg Code, international law? What is your perspective as a lawyer?

Wilfried Schmitz: Yes, those responsible in governments, administrations and also in the judiciary have failed completely in many respects since 2020 and in many cases have also violated international criminal law, the Basic Law and numerous criminal laws, in particular criminal offenses under the German Criminal Code and the Medicines Act.

In a landmark ruling in 2006 concerning the authorization to shoot down hijacked passenger aircraft and air safety, the Federal Constitutional Court decided that the right to life and human dignity are violated when the state uses the lives of innocent people to protect others. Therefore, no one can be forced to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others. Their lives have equal value.

This must of course apply especially when a person is to be forced to take a measure that is inherently unsuitable for protecting other people — by which I mean all the unsuitable so-called anti-corona measures and especially the useless and harmful modRNA injections.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without his or her voluntary consent.”

Please note that the second sentence essentially corresponds to what the Nuremberg Code states.

It would far exceed the scope of this interview if I were to even hint at the criminal injustices that have been committed in this context since 2020.

But since 2020, I have seen my role as a lawyer as being, in particular, to document the inhumane arbitrariness and injustice of the Corona years for all time, based on facts and without any relativization or embellishment — also for the time when a reckoning with all legal consequences for those responsible will take place.

This endeavor resulted in my 514-page book (DIN A4 format) “The Unmasking of the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Machinations .” Everything relevant, all the lies and deception, in one book.

The time for reckoning will—so I firmly believe—definitely come at some point, even if God himself has to come. But justice will come. How wonderful that no one can bypass God, not even a pharmaceutical lobbyist.

Following the initial verdict: a second indictment in 350 further cases. The most serious offenders are released early—a doctor who helped people remains behind bars. When will this wave of persecution end?

Wilfried Schmitz: I could say: Only God knows when this will end.

But to be more specific, I can say: This persecution will end the moment those responsible for the Corona policies since 2020 have lost their offices and the people can finally force a public reckoning.

In other words, as long as the perpetrators can still operate the levers of power and manipulate public opinion through the media, nothing will change. But when people—here in this country and everywhere else—finally wake up and realize what has actually been done to them since 2020, then it will be over.

Nothing is more powerful than the people. You cannot wage war against your own people—at least not when manipulating the population no longer works because everyone has grasped the truth.

A genuine reckoning with the COVID-19 situation would mean: the measures were wrong, the doctors were right, the verdicts were wrong. But the perpetrator doesn’t indict himself. Do you believe that Dr. Witzschel will ever be exonerated and compensated?

Wilfried Schmitz: Yes, it certainly will sooner or later, because justice will prevail sooner or later — this time hopefully not 50 years after the natural death of the last perpetrators, who until then lived like maggots in bacon.

She certainly never needed to be rehabilitated by any well-informed and honest person. They always knew that they wanted precisely the kind of doctors who remain steadfast even under pressure.

But she must of course be officially rehabilitated and compensated, because she merely wanted to protect people from the madness and inhumanity of the so-called anti-corona measures and did not harm anyone in the process. On the contrary: she is a shining example for all future doctors who care first and foremost about people and who refuse to sell their souls to the pharmaceutical industry or politics.

Doctors like Dr. Witzschel are persecuted and destroyed. Doctors who dutifully prescribe pharmaceutical products remain unmolested. Who actually writes health policy in Germany—the state in the interest of patients, or the pharmaceutical industry in the interest of profit?

Wilfried Schmitz: I think everyone can answer that question for themselves by now. Even Horst Seehofer admitted in a 2008 interview how powerful the pharmaceutical industry and doctors’ lobby is.

Countless articles and many worthwhile non-fiction books have been published on this topic online.

My aforementioned book contains a list of reference literature, including on this topic. I would like to highlight Peter C. Gotsche’s book “Deadly Medicine and Organized Crime” in this context.

Dr. Witzschel worked her entire life and paid into the pension system. The medical association ensured that she was no longer allowed to practice medicine—and thus she received not a single euro in pension from June 2024 to February 2026. Has this woman ever done anything other than help people—and is she being punished for it across the board?

Wilfried Schmitz: That certainly seems to be the case. She paid into her pension fund—so she is entitled to the pension benefits. Right now, she has other things on her mind. But the matter has been discussed. And I can see no reason why she shouldn’t be entitled to these pension benefits—her pension.

Should their pension fund cause problems, then this will be pursued in court.

How much longer will Dr. Witzschel remain in Chemnitz Prison? Is there a possibility of early release—and could you explain to our viewers what a two-thirds release means and what her chances of success are?

Wilfried Schmitz: I hope at the latest until July 26, 2026, because then two-thirds of her prison sentence will have been served according to the judgment of the Dresden Regional Court of June 17, 2024.

Section 57, paragraph 1 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), which governs this remission of the remainder of a fixed-term sentence, states: “The court shall suspend the execution of the remainder of a fixed-term prison sentence on probation if, firstly, two-thirds of the imposed sentence, but at least two months, have been served; secondly, this can be justified taking into account the public’s interest in safety; and thirdly, the convicted person consents. In making this decision, particular consideration shall be given to the convicted person’s personality, their prior record, the circumstances of their offense, the seriousness of the legal interest threatened by a recidivism, the convicted person’s conduct during incarceration, their living conditions, and the effects that the suspension is expected to have on them.”

It is obvious that my client’s release could in no way compromise public safety. Since she is prohibited from practicing medicine until further notice, there is no possibility of a relapse—in the form of issuing medical certificates—that could threaten any legal rights. Her conduct during her incarceration has been exemplary.

Her past and personality also do not give rise to any grounds for refusal, and the circumstances of the act — in particular her prior knowledge and motives — must finally be taken into account in her favor.

I can therefore see nothing that would preclude the remission of the final third of her sentence. Quite the contrary: her life has been shattered by the prosecution she has suffered. It would be inhumane to prevent her, even beyond July 26, 2026, from finally being able to spend her twilight years in dignity—together with her beloved cat Mutzel and her friends.

Dr. Witzschel grew up in East Germany and experienced an unjust regime. In her letter, she writes: “It pains me immensely that I feel as if Germany is going down the same path as East Germany.” Do you share this assessment?

Wilfried Schmitz: I cannot address such questions in just a few sentences. I was never in East Germany during the GDR era, so I only know everything from the experiences of former GDR citizens and people from West Germany who had relatives in East Germany.

Surely no one wants a communist system like that again, even though many East German citizens had extremely bitter experiences with some of the inhumane aspects of West German capitalism. To whom was almost all the wealth of the former GDR transferred after 1989?

But as far as I know, workers in East Germany still had a certain status. They just couldn’t cross the leadership—otherwise, they’d be ruined. What status do workers have today? Can they still build a comfortable life with their own labor, as was possible up until the 1980s?

And what status does a doctor have today if they practically have panic attacks just for issuing an exemption certificate? Who even certifies a medical contraindication for, say, measles vaccinations anymore?

The surveillance technologies that exist today far surpass the technical means available to the East German State Security Service — and it would be naive to believe that what is technically possible is not actually being used.

Did the East German media spread propaganda? What about the media in West Germany and the entire Western world? Any thinking person can answer for themselves whether public service media fulfill their legal mandate.

Who still feels free and safe in a country where, since 2020, the COVID-19 justice system has effectively deprived the entire population of their rights, where women and girls can no longer feel safe, and where people are constantly being attacked with knives for no reason? A country where, despite all the warning signs, 5G installations with high EMF emissions and wind turbines with all their disadvantages for people and nature are being expanded everywhere? And a thousand other examples.

Numerous problems are simply suppressed and never discussed and resolved publicly in an objective manner. On the contrary: anyone who wants to address problems openly is simply pigeonholed politically and discredited.

Incidentally: Did the GDR ever conduct such a mass experiment with conditionally approved genetically modified RNA injections?

I wouldn’t have wanted to live in the GDR — but what politicians have already demanded of people in this country, especially since 2020, is truly outrageous.

Comparisons with the situation in East Germany are unhelpful. Such comparisons are never useful. What is clearly wrong must be addressed – regardless of the political system in which it was practiced.

Dr. Witzschel lost her dog during her imprisonment—it died while she was incarcerated. An animal that doesn’t understand why she wasn’t with it. An animal that loves unconditionally, without judgment. What does that say about a system that didn’t even allow her that farewell? Did she have any other pets?

Wilfried Schmitz: Yes, that’s very cruel and unjustifiable. The dog practically died because he had lost his beloved owner. Experienced dog owners wouldn’t be surprised by such a reaction from a loyal dog in the face of such a loss.

She also has a cat, Mutzel, whom she loves very much and to whom she regularly writes her Mutzel letters, which are also published.

Can’t you just leave a woman alone who, all she really hopes for in life is to finally be allowed to live her life again with her cat and a few friends?

Dr. Witzschel has lost everything—her house, her practice, her medical license, her reputation. Some in the public say: she gets what she deserves. What do you say to these people—and how does Dr. Witzschel cope with being condemned for fulfilling her medical duty?

Wilfried Schmitz: I would like to remind everyone that no one has the right to judge other people. This is also the message of Jesus and the New Testament.

And apart from that: Can it really be right to persecute, condemn, and professionally and economically destroy a person because, by virtue of their qualifications, they were able to see what the apparently still blind and deaf part of the public could never see or hear — despite the information available to everyone online?

Those who completely and without any consideration relinquish personal responsibility to others endanger themselves the most — and then they must not demand that other people join in their ignorance.

Anyone who accuses a person—especially a doctor—of being critical, or even critical of vaccinations, is essentially accusing them of lacking the capacity for critical thinking and thus of lacking intelligence. And that’s where it becomes truly absurd, because it amounts to advocating for the rule of stupidity.

Who, then, has the right to condemn my client? Those who do so should ask themselves what they have done in their own lives, and especially since 2020, to protect themselves and their fellow human beings from injustice and arbitrariness.

They should ask themselves where the world would be today if there had never been courageous people who had a different and new view of the world and wanted to go new ways.

The truth is, the sheeple, the uninformed, the cowardly opportunists have absolutely no right to condemn Dr. Witzschel. Perhaps they only do so to protect themselves from the realization that they themselves lacked the courage to protect their own families when it mattered. It’s so much easier, after all, to condemn others who don’t fit into their self-constructed narrative.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the one wise person in the audience—and that is always God. His judgment is decisive.

How does my client deal with this? She must acknowledge the reality that she cannot change on her own — and, moreover, hope for the solidarity of her friends and supporters.

476 days in pretrial detention, the loss of everything — and now imprisonment again. What gives her the strength not to give up?

Wilfried Schmitz: I believe her strong personality and her firm belief that the will to protect human life can never be wrong before God and man.

When judgments are handed down in the name of the people, the will of the people must be respected, especially in court. And the people certainly do not want doctors to be persecuted and punished simply because they proved their worth when so many others failed.

My client also believes in God, who is a God of love and who will surely only accept the truth—and who will be just on Judgment Day when everyone receives their just reward. This will certainly give her strength and confidence to face the future.

Many people are shaken and want to help. Is it permissible to visit or write to Dr. Witzschel? How can one support her defense—and what concrete steps can people take to show her that she is not alone?

Wilfried Schmitz: Yes, of course she is happy to receive letters and cards — but asks for understanding if she cannot answer all letters, but possibly only a fraction of them.

On my website www.anwalt-schmitz.eu you will find numerous suggestions on how to support you and your defense. I would like to draw your attention to this resource.

Please share this report. Please also subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Thank you for your support.

A doctor in prison — because she protected her patients — “The justice system is no longer doing its job”

Opinion

Estonia

EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY