Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
Unbelievable Conditions at the District Court - Doctor Convicted for Scientifically Correct WorkWhat happens when the law turns reality on its head? A doctor in Germany is sentenced because she applied scientifically correct knowledge.  Let’s imagine that the following (purely hypothetical) case took place in an unknown country not too long ago: The parliament of country X passes a "Law on the Properties and Functioning of the Human Body". Section 22a, paragraph 2 of this law reads as follows: "The color of human blood is green." Patient P appears one day at the practice of Doctor A and asks for a certificate stating that his blood is red. A takes blood from his fingertip and convinces herself with her own eyes that P's blood is indeed red. She then issues the requested certificate. The certificate eventually falls into the hands of the public prosecutor, who immediately investigates for issuing a false medical certificate. The indictment is filed against Doctor A. A's defense requests the questioning of P to prove the fact that his blood is indeed red. P had previously released A from her duty of confidentiality and expressed his willingness to appear in court, testify, and have blood drawn in the presence of the judge and prosecutor so that everyone can be convinced of the red color of his blood. The court rejects the request for evidence and convicts A for issuing a false medical certificate. The court’s reasoning states that it did not need to consider the defense's request for evidence, as the fact to be proven could be assumed as true in favor of the defendant (A). The court is well aware that human blood is red. Nevertheless, the medical certificate issued by A in favor of P is incorrect. The legislator has decreed that human blood is green. Therefore, the reader of the certificate would be misled into believing that there was a legal basis for the certificate. Anyone who has read this text so far will be thinking: What absurd nonsense! But no – such a case actually happened on May 22, 2025. In Germany. Before the Schweinfurt District Court (the case number I was given is: 1 Js 8016/22). What on earth happened there? A credible process report, which can be accessed here, t.me/infokanalimpfungen describes the case as follows: The accused doctor had issued certificates of recovery from COVID-19 to her patients in a total of 294 cases – based on antibody or T-cell tests. She was convicted for each of these 294 certificates for issuing a false health certificate. While she did not certify anything medically incorrect, she created the false impression that there was a legal basis for her certificates. Because Section 22a, paragraph 2 of the IfSG reads as follows: "A certificate of recovery is a proof of the presence of immunity acquired through a previous infection with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (...), if (...) the previous infection has been proven by a nucleic acid test (PCR, PoC-NAAT or other methods of nucleic acid amplification technology) (...)” The legislator has declared SUITABLE methods of proving recovery to be UNACCEPTABLE and instead declared an INSUFFICIENT, massively error-prone method to be SOLELY ACCEPTABLE. And the accused doctor had committed the "crime" of not going along with this nonsense, but relying on what she had once learned about humoral and cellular immunity. Medically correct diagnostics are punished, while medically insufficient diagnostics are rewarded. Absolutely upside down. And it gets worse. Section 22a, paragraph 2 of the IfSG has only been in the law since March 19, 2022. Most of the certificates the prosecution relied on were issued before that. Therefore, the Schweinfurt District Court also disregarded the prohibition of retroactive punishment (Article 103, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law). It is shameful how Section 278 of the Criminal Code, the provision that punishes the issuing of false health certificates, is being misused to intimidate, silence, and ultimately ruin critical doctors. The doctor is to be sentenced to 15 months in prison – though on probation – for simply following her conscience and medical expertise. The judgment is – fortunately – not yet final. The appeal process will be interesting to watch.
Author: AI Translation - Martin Schwab | 06.07.2025 |
|
| Other articles: |
 | The Great Interest of the Clown Frogs and Their Inability to DifferentiateThe headline could also have been: The Fear of Democracy and Freedom of Speech and the Like, which the Clown Frogs once again put on display.... zum Artikel |
 | Burgenlandkreis bankrupt? Student transportation not fundedThe Department of Education refuses to finance student transportation and thereby denies support to the parents of a child with school anxiety. An odyssey against the entire bureau... zum Artikel |
 | How Fast Is the Fire Department, Really?It could almost be a question for “Ask the Mouse,” but I just took a look myself.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |