A letter written from 81 scientists and sent to the Bundestag (federal parliamentarians) argues compulsory vaccination is “not necessary, not appropriate and therefore unconstitutional”.
The scientists and scholars not only cited inalienable fundamental rights of citizens, but stated that mandatory vaccination is “not appropriate because of a high potential for risk” and that “side effects reported relative to other vaccines are enormous.”
The letter included a 70-page thesis underpinning why a Corona vaccination requirement is unconstitutional. It concludes: “Mandatory vaccination is neither appropriate, necessary, nor adequate to effectively reduce serious illness and prevent significant health care overuse.”
At least 80 percent unreported
The Group of 81 also calculated “a rate of at least 80 percent of unreported suspected cases of vaccine side effects.”
They also warned of “alarming safety signals, namely evidence of an increase in deaths as well as certain disease patterns such as myocarditis and pericarditis that occurred parallel to the vaccination campaigns. Original document here.
The scientists noted in their letter to the legislators that from a legal point of view, “the first principle is that the burden of proof lies with the legislator” and “that unresolved serious concerns on only one of the four points are sufficient to declare a vaccination requirement unconstitutional”:
1. The right to self-determination, which is protected by fundamental rights, prohibits obliging individuals to vaccinate for their own protection. Under constitutional law, only the goal of protecting others is permissible, although this must not involve the absolute exclusion of any risk to the health of third parties, which the state cannot otherwise guarantee. Only two goals appear permissible here: a.) to reduce the number of severe diseases (intensive care patients and deaths) to a level that corresponds to that of other infectious diseases; b.) to prevent a significant overload of the health care system.
2. The appropriateness of compulsory vaccination is doubtful, because the available COVID vaccines do not generate sufficient immunity and thus do not provide sufficient protection from others: a) After a few weeks, vaccination not only no longer has a positive effect on the probability of infection, but may even increase this probability – as currently shown by Omicron; b) Vaccination has only a small effect on the severity of the disease, which decreases in a short period of time; c) People with vaccination are no less infectious when infected than people without vaccination. So vaccination cannot break chains of infection.
3. The necessity of a general vaccination obligation is to be denied, because a) the special danger of COVID-19 is no longer given. With the emergence of the Omicron variant, it is considered that the number of diseases with severe course has reached the level of a normal seasonal influenza; b) vaccination is not without alternative, because there are highly effective therapies as well as preventive measures available; c) a significant overload of the health care system has not occurred.
4. Mandatory vaccination is not appropriate because the available vaccines are not only not safe, but have an unprecedented risk potential: (a) measured by the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are novel drugs conditionally approved under special conditions, and their medium or long-term risk potential has not been adequately studied; (b) measured by the dangerousness and frequency of vaccine side effects documented by the Paul Ehrlich Institute; c) measured by a justified estimate of unrecorded side effects of at least 80 percent; d) measured by an unexplained high number of deaths, especially in the middle age groups into adolescence, which is temporally related to the vaccinations; e) measured by the emerging broad spectrum of side effects, whose extent of danger can only be estimated in the long term.”
The scientists write that they have showed that “valid concerns exist with respect to all of the above criteria” and thus a mandatory vaccination “would be unconstitutional.”