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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?