Statement by 81 German-speaking Scientists:
Mandatory Vaccination in Germany is Unconstitutional
March 9th, 2022
The introduction of mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 would represent a violation of the German constitution, a detailed 70-page report by a group of 81 scientists based in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, has stated. The group argues that mandatory vaccination is neither appropriate, necessary nor adequate to effectively reduce the burden of serious illnesses and thus prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed.
Vaccinations against COVID-19 are not appropriate because they do not provide sufficient protection from infection and from spreading the infection to others, meaning that they cannot meaningfully interrupt the chain of infection. Mandatory vaccination is not necessary because a special danger no longer exists. This is because, particularly since the dominance of the Omicron-variant, the number of severe cases of COVID-19 is now equivalent to that of a normal seasonal influenza.
In addition, effective medication is available that, when used early, in most cases results in a mild course of infection and breaks the chain of infection by reducing viral load. Mandatory vaccination is not appropriate because of the high level of vaccine-associated risk.
Compared to other vaccinations, the level of reported side-effects has been enormous. In addition, there is good reason to assume that at least 80% of suspected cases of vaccination side effects go unreported. Research on side effects has been insufficient, while a wide range of unexpected symptoms has been observed. Further alarming safety signals concern the increase in myocarditis, pericarditis and deaths that has been observed in temporal association with the vaccination campaigns.
On January 6, 2022, the group issued a statement entitled “7 arguments against mandatory vaccination”. Their new report elaborates on the “7 arguments” based both on a metanalysis of the current state of research and on their own research.
Contact: wissenschaftler at 7argumente.de
Dear Members of the German Bundestag, Ladies and Gentlemen,
You will soon have to decide on whether to pass a law mandating vaccination. Mandatory vaccination will restrict fundamental rights, including the right to bodily integrity, with the risk of violating human dignity and self-determination. With this letter, the 81 undersigned scientists present you with arguments for a decision on this matter in conformity with the constitution.
A constitutional review comprises four questions:
1.) Which objective of this law is constitutional?
2.) Is this measure, i.e., mandatory vaccination, appropriate regarding this objective?
3.) Is this measure necessary?
4.) Is this measure adequate?
Firstly, from a legal point of view the burden of proof lies with you, the legislators. Secondly, unresolved serious concerns regarding only one of the four points are sufficient to render mandatory vaccination unconstitutional.
In the following, we show that there are serious concerns about all the criteria mentioned above, and that statutory mandatory vaccination would therefore be unconstitutional. Comprehensive evidence for our individual arguments can be found in the appendices to which we refer in each case.
With regard to point 1.) The right to self-determination, which is protected by the constitution, prohibits placing an obligation on individuals to take a vaccine for their own protection. Under constitutional law, only the aim of protecting others might be acceptable in certain cases, whereby the absolute exclusion of risk to the health of third parties – something no state is ever able to guarantee – is not permissible. In achieving this aim, only two goals might be allowed:
a.) to reduce the number cases of serious illness (that is, those requiring treatment in an intensive care unit or causing death) to a level comparable to other infectious diseases;
b.) to prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed.
With regard to point 2.) The appropriateness of mandatory vaccination is doubtful because the available COVID-19 vaccines do not generate sufficient immunity and thus do not sufficiently protect the vaccinated person either from becoming infected himself or from transmitting the infection to others:
a) After a few weeks, vaccination not only no longer reduces the probability of infection, but can even increase this probability – as currently shown by experience with the Omicron variant [Appendix 1: Section 4;]
b) Vaccination has only a small protective effect regarding the likelihood of developing severe disease, and even this effect decreases within a short time [Appendix 1: Sections 2. and 3.];
c) Vaccinated people are no less infectious when infected than non-vaccinated people. Thus, vaccination cannot break the chain of infection [Appendix 1: Section 7.].
With regard to point 3.) There is no requirement for mandatory vaccination because
a) COVID-19 no longer particularly dangerous. With the appearance of the Omicron variant, the number of cases of serious illness has reached the level of a normal seasonal influenza [Annex 1: Section 1;]
b) there are alternatives to vaccination in the form of effective therapies and preventive measures [Appendix 2];
c) the health care system has not been overwhelmed [Annex 3].
With regard to point 4.) Mandatory vaccination is not suitable because the available vaccines are not only unsafe but have an unprecedented risk profile
(a) based on the fact that the COVID-19 vaccines are novel medicines that were licensed conditionally under special regulations and whose potential for harmful effects in the medium and long term has not been adequately investigated;
b) based on the severity and frequency of potential vaccine side effects reported to the statutory Paul Ehrlich Institute for Vaccines and Medicines;
c) based on an evidence-based estimate of underreporting of adverse reactions of at least 80% [Appendix 4];
d) based on a large number of unexplained deaths occurring in temporal relation to vaccination, particularly in the age range extending from adolescence to middle age [Annex 5];
e) based on the broad spectrum of side effects that are appearing, the health implications of which will only become clear in the long term [Annex 6].
In conclusion, a law mandating COVID-19 vaccination, whether active immediately or intended to be activated at a later date, is neither appropriate, necessary, nor adequate to achieve its stated goal and is therefore not in accordance with the Constitution. Such a law may therefore not be passed.
Having regard to the degree to which this debate has disrupted and divided our society in recent months, we kindly ask you to use the debate on mandatory vaccination as an opportunity to begin a process that will lead to healing and reconciliation within our democracy.