New Lawsuit Against German Policy Advisor Who Promoted Lockdowns Based on Unreliable PCR Tests and False Coronavirus Claims

December 15, 2020 | Law firm Dr. Fuellmich | Source

Green Mango GmbH, vertreten durch Nils Roth v. Prof Dr. Christian Drosten; New Claim: Green Mango GmbH, represented by Nils Roth v. Prof Dr. Christian Drosten 15.12.2020

Link To Full Document_New Claim: Green Mango GmbH, represented by Nils Roth v. Prof Dr. Christian Drosten 15.12.2020

Translated from German:

Green Mango GmbH, represented by Nils Roth v. Prof Dr. Christian Drosten

“Dear Professor Drosten,

We hereby indicate that Green Mango GmbH, Bülowstrasse 56, 10783 Berlin, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Nils Roth, has commissioned us to represent its interests, as evidenced by the enclosed power of attorney. Our client has suffered and continues to suffer considerable damage as a result of the grossly disproportionate measures imposed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic without any evidence-based foundation.

You are personally responsible for this damage because you, as one of the persons who intervened in a significant and decisive manner in the provision of policy advice, deliberately claimed and still claim false facts and – also deliberately – concealed and still conceal material facts. In the name of and on behalf of our client, we claim that you should rectify your erroneous contribution to policy advice in connection with the COVID 19 crisis and compensate our client for the damage already incurred.

 I. The basic assumptions of the Corona policy
The measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic (if it is a pandemic) are based on the following assumptions:
-SARS CoV-2 is a completely new pathogen, which has jumped from animals to humans, which is completely unknown to the human organism, against which no one is immune and which can therefore spread exponentially.
– This pathogen is so insidious that it can even be passed on by people who have no symptoms themselves.
– Therefore, the only way out is to diagnose the (noticed or unnoticed) COVID-19 disease by means of a PCR test
–  If the state does not intervene consistently, there is a risk of massive over-mortality and a dramatic overload of intensive care capacities.
– The incidence of infection can be monitored by expanding the testing capacity. Accordingly, more than 1 million people are currently being tested for SARS CoV2 by PCR every week.


II. On the errors underlying these assumptions: the five lockdown misstatements

These assumptions, meanwhile, exhaust themselves in an empty narrative based on several successive and interlocking false factual assertions.

1 The first false assertion: No basic immunity.

Without any evidence is first of all the assumption that the virus has jumped from animals to humans in Wuhan/China. To prove such a zoonosis, other prevalence of the pathogen among humans would have to be reliably excluded. It is not evident that this would have been done here. The doubts about the zoonosis hypothesis accordingly also feed doubts about the thesis that this is a completely new pathogen. It is precisely this thesis that would have to be substantiated if it were to be claimed that no one is immune to the virus. In contrast, you yourself have pointed out in several episodes of your NDR podcast that SARS CoV-2 is closely related to the old SARS virus of 2003 (for example in the podcast of March 18, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 16, transcript p. 3).

If SARS CoV-2 were really a completely new pathogen, it would be inexplicable why so many people survived the pandemic (also and especially in non-lockdown states) – a fact that is pointed out by a high-caliber group of authors around the Nobel laureate in chemistry Michael Levitt (Udi Qimron/Uri Ga- vish/Eyal Shahar/Michael Levitt in Haaretz, 20. 7.2020, https://www.drop- And it would also not be explainable why the Infection Fatality Rate is now demonstrably in the range of a normal flu wave. This is proven by the meta-study by John Ioannidis, which was published online in the WHO Bulletin in October 2020 ( But also the WHO itself admits meanwhile indirectly that the mortality is not higher than with a normal flu. If it is estimated there that (at the time of the relevant statement) 10% of the world’s population, i.e., 780 million people were infected with COVID-19 at some point and approximately 1,061,000 died from this disease, an estimated Infection Fatality Rate of 0.14% is calculated (Kit Knightly in Off Guardian, 8/10/2020 gerous-than-flu/?

Finally, the long incubation period of up to 14 days also indicates that the human immune system is already prepared for the pathogen. This was pointed out by Beda Stadler in an article in the Swiss Weltwoche (second publication on rum_alle_falsch_lagen).

The authors Udi Qimron/Uri Gavish/Eyal Shahar/Michael Levitt, already cited here just now (https://www.drop- pdf?dl=0), drew attention to the fact that pre-immunity already exists and that, for this reason, in none of the countries studied did more than 20% of the population become infected with SARS CoV-2.

Claims to the effect that no one is immune and that anyone can become infected have no basis in fact.

Not to be misunderstood: There is no dispute here that there can be severe and fatal courses of COVID-19. But the quantitative extent of the threat has been dramatically overestimated. It is therefore misleading if you speak of exponential kinetics (such as in the NDR podcast of March 18, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 16, transcript p. 2, as well as in the NDR podcast of May 28, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 44, transcript p. 5) or exponential multiplication (such as in the NDR podcast of March 19, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 17, transcript p. 6 as well as in the NDR podcast of May 19, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 42, transcript p. 2). The virus may indeed affect those who are in the vicinity of a diseased person. But exponential multiplication would mean that all, or at least many, of these people would in turn become ill. However, this is precisely not the case. For those whose immune system can cope with the pathogen, further spreading stops. It is therefore also not true that the disease can increase exponentially if we are not in lockdown (but so your statement in the NDR podcast of April 7, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 29, transcript p. 4).

2. The second false claim: symptomless infectiousness

The assumption that a person can contract COVID-19 completely unnoticed and pass the virus on to other people just as unnoticed, because it is symptom-free, is without evidence and supported by shockingly weak studies.

This false factual claim began with a case report in the March 5, 2020, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM 382;10), in which you and others claimed that a symptomless Chinese businesswoman met four employees of a local company in Munich who all subsequently became ill with COVID-19. In Wuhan, they said, this lady then tested positive for SARS CoV-2. This was the ultimate proof that symptomless people could also be contagious. This case report had already been published as a preprint on January 30, 2020. On February 3, a commentary on this appeared, which pointed out that the lady from China did have symptoms and only suppressed them with the help of medication (Kai Kupferschmidt on February 3, 2020 at mitting-coronavirus-wrong). This was the result of conversations with this lady – conversations that the authors of the case report, including you, had omitted.

Nevertheless, the case report was printed in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 5, 2020. It constitutes outright scientific fraud that this case report was not immediately retracted after the error became known. A follow-up study, which was then published, again with your collaboration, on 15. May 2020 in The Lancet (Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20;920-928) and in which the “outbreak cluster” in the Munich company was to be epidemiologically traced, then suddenly brought to light the revealing finding that the lady from China had still had contact with her COVID-19-ill parents shortly before her trip to Munich – a finding that had still been suppressed in the case report of March 5, 2020. The study in The Lancet of May 15, 2020 contains numerous inconsistencies, both in itself and in relation to the case report of February 3, 2020, which have already been discussed elsewhere (

It is hardly surprising that for the Corona outbreak in Wuhan not a single asymptomatic transmission of SARS CoV-2 could be detected (Shiyi Gao et al. in (2020) 11:5917 |
The false assertion that a person can pass on the virus without symptoms is particularly perfidious, because it corrodes society: everyone sees his fellow human being only as a highly dangerous virus slinger and reacts to this with disgust, aggression or in any case with fear and panic. Since even school children are indoctrinated by parents and teachers in this sense, massive behavioral and developmental disorders are already foreseeable. You will also be held liable for this.

3. The third false claim: PCR-based diagnostics.

And without the lie of symptomless contagion, no one would have come up with the idea of testing even perfectly healthy people for SARS CoV-2 using PCR. In reality, PCR-based diagnostics are fraught with so many sources of error that it was downright irresponsible to introduce them for symptomless people:

-A PCR test cannot distinguish between lifeless viral debris from survived infection on the one hand and viruses capable of reproduction on the other. If, in this situation, symptomless people are tested en masse, this will have fatal consequences: since the vast majority of COVID-19 infections are inconsequential, many people will be tested who are perfectly healthy and whose immune system has coped with the pathogen, but who then carry these lifeless fragments. As will be seen, this is a source of error that will become apparent all by itself in the coming weeks and months. And this source of error will not change even if your claim in the podcast of September 29, 2020, that even with lifeless viruses the full viral genome is still detectable, is true.

– No test is 100% accurate. At low prevalence, even minor deficiencies in the specificity of the test system used are enough to noticeably cloud the positive predictive value of a positive test result. Even the Federal Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, admitted this himself in an interview with ARD on June 14, 2020. Nevertheless, testing continues en masse – despite the still low prevalence of COVID-19. And not all test systems used are equally specific – if only because nowhere is it specified what the minimum specificity of such a system must be in order to be allowed to be used at all. An example of this is an incident that came to light in Augsburg, Germany, in which 58 of a cohort of 60 people tested falsely positive. And this happened close in time to the lockdown decision of the Conference of Minister Presidents. Such decisions are made on the basis of incorrectly determined case numbers and therefore have far-reaching consequences.

– If the test system does not strike until a large number of replication cycles have been performed, the viral load is so low that active infection is ruled out. In the NDR podcast of May 7, 2020, you yourself referred to a study according to which a patient is considered “less infectious” after 25 cycles. Indeed, the authors of a Canadian study were unable to identify any replication-capable virus beyond 24 cycles (Jared Bullard et al. in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Nevertheless, when the new case numbers are added up again, nowhere is it checked at which Ct value the cutoff was set in the respective positive test case. The result of a PCR test is thus highly susceptible to manipulation – and thus susceptible to political influence, if high case numbers are once again “needed” to intimidate the population. In any case, the values determined on the basis of a PCR test are not a sufficient basis for completely shutting down public life and interfering with people’s liberties in an unprecedented way.

– A PCR test is not capable of distinguishing mere contamination from infection. As long as the viruses rest on the mucous membranes and do not enter the body cells, a person is only contaminated, but not infected. In this case, the viruses do not multiply and therefore do not pose a risk of infection. Nevertheless, a PCR test is also positive in these people. You yourself pointed out this problem in an interview with Wirtschaftswoche in 2014.

– The significance of a positive PCR test also depends on which and how many primers are searched for. The less specific these are for SARS CoV-2, the lower the significance.

Conclusion: One positive PCR test is not the same as another positive PCR test. We do not know at all what happened in the respective laboratory. It is not surprising that Mike Yeadon, former Chief Medical Officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, strongly advises against the use of PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a recent article (https://lockdownscep- And yet, every positive test enters the Robert Koch Institute’s statistics as an alleged “new infection,” and thus into the very metric on which the political decisions that follow are based. A further complicating factor is that if a person is tested several times in rapid succession, each positive test result is declared to be a “new infection”.

For this very reason, PCR tests are not only unsuitable for individual diagnosis, but also not even for screening. The only decisive factor must be how many people become ill, how many have to be hospitalized, how many have to be treated in intensive care and how many have to be ventilated. The instrument for reliably assessing these events has long existed at the Robert Koch Institute, namely in the area of influenza surveillance: the sentinel program (see § 13 Para. 2 IfSG). It is not at all comprehensible why this is not also used to a much greater extent for COVID-19. Friedrich Pürner, the head of the Aichach-Friedberg public health department (who has since been transferred), recently called for the Sentinel instruments to be used for COVID-19 surveillance as well, and rightly so.

4. The fourth false claim: imminent overburdening of the health care systems

Model calculations that millions of intensive care patients and hundreds of thousands of deaths are to be feared in Germany alone have never come true. And the politicians themselves apparently did not believe in the impending apocalypse in the healthcare system. How else could it be explained that the lockdown went into effect on March 23, 2020, and then on March 24, 2020, just one day later, it was reported that COVID-19 patients from France and Italy were now being accepted (https://www.aerzte- aus-Italien-und-Frankreich-auf).

Apparently, at no point did we have to worry about flooding our health care system. That said, as the summer progressed, the Corona measures became more and more divorced from their actual argumentative foundation. There was no sign of an overload of the health care system. On the contrary, the clinics suffered from a lack of capacity utilization because essential medical services were not provided for other patients, because there might be a big rush of COVID 19 patients at some point. Doctors and nursing staff were put on short-time work.

If you look at the DIVI intensive care register and compare the daily reports from 21.7.2020 and 21.11.2020, you will see that there were still over 32,000 intensive care beds in Germany on 21.7.2020 – i.e. occupied and unoccupied together – whereas on 21.11.2020 there were no longer even 28,000. How can anyone believe that a government – which you played a key role in advising – is cutting more than one-eighth of all intensive care capacities in the middle of a pandemic?

To the extent that hospitals are sounding the alarm about overcrowding, it is not because of a “new and insidious” virus, but because our hospital system reaches its capacity limits every year as soon as the flu season hits:

This was the headline of BILD on 12.03.2018: +++Hospitals overcrowded +++Even doctors infected+++ Already 39 dead+++ Flu-GAU in Leipzig’s clinics.
Doctors: “Flu wave exceeds anything ever seen before” 55075602.bild.html

Already on 19.02.2013 was in WELT under the headline “Flu wave has Cologne firmly in its grip” to read:
“Bed shortage in Cologne hospitals. Due to the many flu patients, the intensive care units are completely overcrowded. At times, the hospitals are so overloaded that they can no longer accept new patients. Operations have to be postponed due to the tense situation.” im-Griff.html

And even shortly before the start of the “pandemic”, on 11.02.2020 (sic!), the North German Broadcasting Corporation (NDR) drew attention to the catastrophic situation of intensive care units in Bremen and Lower Saxony. Due to considerable bottlenecks, clinics have to “sign off” again and again and also over longer periods of time and can therefore not be approached by ambulances. The situation has even worsened between 2018 and 2019.

“One reason for the increasing bottlenecks is apparently the shortage of staff. If there is a lack of personnel, beds are permanently closed. According to Panorama 3 research, up to a third of the available intensive care capacity cannot be used in some hospitals due to a lack of the necessary intensive care nurses. Bed closures in intensive care are a nationwide problem, according to the German Hospital Association.

Apparently, the staffing floors that have been in effect since January 2019 have exacerbated the problem at some hospitals. The German Hospital Association assesses the new limits as “highly problematic” in view of 17,000 unfilled positions. The lower limits lead to “additional care capacities being deregistered and care bottlenecks being created,” says Georg Baum, managing director of the German Hospital Association (DKG).

A hospital in Lower Saxony describes the situation as follows: “Bed blockages can occur and patients can be turned away. The rescue service then has to put up with long travel times to hospitals that are ready to receive patients.” In addition to long travel times, the consequences of the tense situation include the cancellation of already planned operations because emergencies have to be brought forward.” lastet,intensive-care106.html

In short, nothing has changed in the state of our healthcare system. Worse still: despite a supposed pandemic, the course of savings in the area of intensive care has been blithely continued, and instead of taking countermeasures here, we hear from consultants like you that the only panacea is the complete shutdown of social life.

Let’s now look abroad: overloaded health care systems and excess mortality have only occurred in those regions that have always had to struggle with the same problems anyway and where political missteps or serious errors in medication have contributed to the worsening of the crisis. This is particularly true for Italy. The horror pictures from television provided the German public with a distorted picture of the conditions there. In reality, panicism in the media and hasty political decisions have driven patients into the clinics and nursing staff out of the clinics and nursing homes. And all this is – as the public prosecutor’s investigations taking place there in the meantime have shown – the result of a targeted intervention by the WHO for the purpose of creating horror images for the rest of the world (motto: “see where it leads if you don’t stick to the given rules like the dis- ziplined Germans”) by appointing a WHO state administrator who also did not shy away from falsifying data in pandemic plans.

A WHO report outlining some of these circumstances was withdrawn when it became clear that a pandemic plan purportedly from 2016 was from 2006 and the date had been falsified. one/testo/202005/COVID-19-Italy-response.pdf

5 The Fifth False Claim: Restrictions on Liberty as a Remedy

Finally, the assumption that individual or collective restrictions of liberty had any positive effect on pandemic response is in no way tenable. Rather, the opposite is the only case.

This applies first of all to the widespread closure of stores and of educational and leisure facilities in March 2020. Figure 4 on page 14 in the Robert Koch Institute’s Epidemiological Bulletin No. 17/2020, which traces the development of the R-value, clearly shows that it had already fallen below 1 before March 23, 2020.

Stefan Homburg had pointed this out early and rightly (see for example his tweet of 28.6.2020 tus/1277197624186208257?lang=en as well as his guest article in WELT of 21.4.2020, Lockdown-gehen-der-Regierung-die-Argumente-aus.html).

The attempt of the Robert Koch Institute to explain this development with an expansion of the test capacities exhausts itself in a smoke candle. Clarity can be obtained by putting this graph in relation to the test figures (see especially for the development in the summer months: Daily Situation Report on COVID-19 of 9/30/2020, p. 10). In early 2020, little testing was done and little was found. In the first half of March, more and more testing was done and more and more was found. After that, testing was at a consistently high level and less and less was found.

This can only mean: Until mid-March, there was a considerable number of unreported cases. The virus had long since arrived in Germany without us noticing it. And by the time we had noticed it, it was already on its way out. Until well into September 2020, the mass testing did not reveal anything more than the usual error rate. The drop in infection numbers in the spring was in no way the merit of the contact lockdowns, but was solely due to the fact that it was warmer again in the spring.

If lockdown measures were to achieve anything, the countries that imposed the toughest cuts must have had the greatest success. However, such a correlation cannot be substantiated in a country comparison. On the contrary, there are now numerous studies proving the ineffectiveness of the containment measures. And even the WHO published a 91-page paper in October, in which it explained how ineffective such measures (school closures, contact quarantine, social distancing, etc.) are in combating influenza. And all this is supposed to save Corona, of all places?

The study from Imperial College that appeared in Nature in June 2020 and concluded that the lockdown saved up to 3.1 million lives (Seth Flaxman et al in Nature 584, 257-261. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7) suffers from primitive errors that Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner illuminatingly pointed out in a November 5, 2020 paper in Frontiers in Medicine ( That Nature study is already subjective not credible, because it exhausts itself in the transparent attempt to justify the horror prognoses of that time.

It is striking that mortality in numerous countries rose sharply in the time windows immediately after the imposition of collective restrictions on freedom. This has been elaborated in detail by John Pospichal ( Pospichal/questions-for-lockdown-apologists-32a9bbf2e247). If we cannot demonstrably hold COVID-19 responsible for this, the focus falls on the collateral damage of the restrictions on freedom: Dementia patients died for lack of care. Demonstrably fewer strokes and heart attacks were cared for. Rotten bodies were found of people who had barricaded themselves at home and were literally rotting away in their own apartments. A significant increase in suicides was reported. The mass testing leads to fatal distortions in the health offices, because they do not fulfill their other tasks. Thus, drinking water control has come to a complete standstill; there are more legionella deaths than before.

All those who have campaigned for cuts in public life, who have imposed and enforced such cuts, have thousands of lives at stake, including you, Prof. Drosten.

And if the upcoming winter should indeed bring to light a large number of intensively medically relevant respiratory diseases, this will not be due to the danger of COVID-19, but to the Corona policy: Social Distancing, preached even in the early aughts, keeps us from exercising our immune systems. And the bombardement with panic reports from home and abroad has done its part: fear has a negative effect on the human immune system. Immunosuppression, however, has never been a suitable instrument for fighting infections.

If one wants to impose lockdown measures from today’s perspective, it must be added that the original logic behind these measures (flattening the curve) has become obsolete due to the actual development in the meantime. As the epidemiologist Gérard Krause rightly points out: The virus is already everywhere anyway ( heit/corona-massnahmen-wie-sinnvoll- ist-die-sperrstunde-a-7d5c63b1-05f4-4ab1-bbf6- b820553ff3ba?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-DE). It just can’t be stopped.

6. The interlocking of the deliberately false lockdown claims
It is remarkable how conspicuously the lies behind the Corona measures are interlocked and interdependent. It is important to take a look at this, because in this way we can see in the overall view that the entire measures are designed to be perpetuated completely without consideration of the actual infection events.

– Only because one assumes against better knowledge that a person can infect others with SARS CoV-2 without being ill himself, masses of tests are carried out.

Just because it is assumed against better knowledge that a person can infect others with SARS CoV-2 without being ill himself, mass testing for this pathogen is carried out: Every single one of us, so the doctrine goes, could be the unrecognized carrier of the deadly virus.

Again, SARS CoV-2 will also affect many people. For many, the viruses will sit on the mucous membranes and not enter the body’s cells at all. For many others, the viruses will enter the body’s cells but will be overwhelmed and killed by the immune system. These groups of people will form the clear majority. In all of them, positive test results will be found – and in the inconsequentially infected for up to three months after infection.

If these people then test positive, they will be listed as “new infections” against their better judgment. The number of people whose immune system kills the virus will increase during the cold seasons. Therefore, the number of people who test positive will also increase – without any health care resources being used.

– The accumulation of “new infections” will therefore be multiplied and will be used by policymakers to justify further cuts. Since positive tests are equated with new infections against better knowledge, the increase in “new infections” declared in this way will in turn feed the lie that the virus is highly contagious and that no one is immune, and therefore the collapse of the health care system is imminent.

The way the infection event is currently mapped, it is purposefully designed to ensure that the lockdown will never end. If this kind of data processing and data presentation is not stopped as quickly as possible, we will all be locked up until well into next spring. Everyone, including you, can imagine what this will mean for economic development, but also for the health development of the population, which was only touched upon above.

III. Your personal responsibility
You yourself have deliberately given the world essential parts of the misinformation listed above.

1 On the question of basic immunity
In your statements in the NDR podcasts, you yourself pointed out the genetic relationship of SARS CoV-2 with the old SARS virus. You also know that the question of how great the immunity is in the population depends on how well known a pathogen is to the human organism.

But if you then claim in the NDR podcast of March 18, 2020, that Germany is in a rising flank of exponential growth kinetics (Coronavirus Update No. 16, transcript p. 2), and use comparable formulations in other podcasts (see above), this is a claim into the blue. It had to be clear to you that they have to provide a high level of evidence for the alleged novelty of the virus and the alleged lack of immunity (i.e., a prerequisite for exponential spread). From a legal point of view, assertions in the blue fulfill the conditional intent.

It is striking that you leave no stone unturned to dispel people’s – well-founded – hope for basic immunity. This applies first of all to herd immunity (see for example NDR podcast of June 24, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 49, transcript p. 9: We are still very far away from herd immunity; NDR podcast of May 5, 2020, Coronavirus Up- date No. 38, transcript p. 2: 70% would have to be immune to achieve herd immunity, and even then the infections would not stop, that is only the apex, which however – you then at least concede – depending on other factors could also be reached at less than 70%; NDR podcast of April 20, 2020, Corona- virus Update No. 33: we are not at all close to herd immunity).

However, it also applies to T-cell immunity: here, although you refer to different research results, you do not consider the thesis of a 30% T-cell immunity from a previous encounter with other human corona viruses to be the correct view (NDR podcast of October 13, 2020, Coronavirus Update No. 60, transcript p. 7). At the same place (ibid. transcript p. 2) you claim that we are not immunologically protected against the virus. You ignore deviating findings known to you, which indicate that the basic immunity has long been present.

2. To the symptomless risk of infection.

At this point you are charged with a particularly serious and momentous misconduct. To put it bluntly: After you yourself had recognized that the supposedly asymptomatic source of infection from China did in fact have symptoms, there would have been only one adequate reaction for you and your co-authors: You should have immediately withdrawn the case study. That study should never have been published as a Letter to the Editor in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study has since been cited over 1,000 times. You have thus contributed significantly to creating the appearance of evidence that does not exist in reality.
Obviously, you have not abandoned your deliberate false assertion that people can infect each other with SARS CoV.-2 without symptoms.

In the ZDF you said on November 1, 2020 ( rama/coronavirus-drosten-ostern-100.html), everybody should behave towards the other in such a way, as if he himself is infected and wants to protect others from himself; at the same time one should act as if the other is infected and one protects oneself from him. In this way, you are fuelling precisely the attitude of mind that is increasingly leading to aggression and corruption in society: Everyone sees only the virus carrier in everyone else. And you obviously find that completely okay.

3. On the PCR test

Until recently, you defend the current practice of diagnosing COVID- 19 using a PCR test. You are very familiar with laboratory medicine.

It cannot have escaped your attention that a PCR test cannot distinguish between replication-capable viruses and lifeless virus fragments and cannot distinguish between contamination and infection. In connection with the Ct value, you admitted in the NDR podcast of September 1, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 54, transcript p. 15) that the significance of the test result depends on the viral load. However, they argued against setting Ct = 30 as an upper limit because of differences in the quality of test reagents and machines.

They themselves concede that one lab’s positive test result is not the same as another lab’s positive test result. However, you then block the consequence that no diagnostic conclusions may be drawn from such a test result. And how do your statements of September 2020 relate to those of May 7, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 39, transcript p. 3), when you still referred to a study that advocated Ct = 25 as a “magic limit”?

You cast doubt on the false positive rate with the following thought operation (see Berliner Morgenpost, September 2, 2020, wissen/article230318584/Falsch-positive-Ergebnisse-bei-ausgeweiteten-Corona- Tests.html): Mostly a second test is done, and therefore the specificity is 99.99%, a false positive result is as good as impossible. In this way, you are deliberately misleading politicians and the public. The second test is carried out precisely because a false positive result is to be ruled out. This means that if the second test is negative, then the test result is also negative or at best without significance, but in no case positive. It then follows that if the second test is false positive, the whole test is false positive. And nothing else applies if the first test is false and the second is true positive. Both tests must be positive for the whole test result to be positive. And therefore, both tests must be true positive for the whole test result to be accepted as true positive.

4. Your lockdown recommendations

Already in the podcast on March 18, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 16, transcript p. 2) you demanded a drastic and drastic intervention (which could only be a political one) to stop the alleged exponential spreading speed of SARS CoV-2. And shortly before the second lockdown was decided on October 28, 2020, you followed up in the NDR podcast of October 27, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 62): in view of the case numbers, you recommended a temporary lockdown to politicians (ibid. transcript p. 5); this would simply be enforced above a certain case number (ibid. transcript p. 6). You attribute the low incidence figures of today to the lockdown in spring, although you know exactly that even the figures and graphs of the Robert Koch Institute do not provide this analysis.

These “case numbers” are nothing more than the product of PCR tests, which are diagnostically without any value and which come about to a very considerable extent by testing more and more. And even the fact that the percentage of positive test results has increased in the last few weeks says nothing at all in view of the manipulation-prone Ct value. Your own presentation in the podcast of May 7, 2020 shows that you know exactly how much the significance of a PCR test decreases when the number of cycles required increases. Nevertheless, you have not yet mentioned the second lockdown recommended, without even questioning the origin of the case figures.

So you know perfectly well that the closure of businesses, which threatens their existence, is ordered on the basis of purely aerial calculations – namely, on the basis of figures that (which must be regarded as completely unscientific) are in no way adjusted for the obvious sources of error. The same applies to the introduction of other restrictions on freedom, such as the introduction of curfews or the tightening of the mask requirement when the “Corona traffic light” jumps to red. And you are not trying to stop this misguided development; on the contrary, you are fueling it.

In a ZEIT interview of October 6, 2020, you defended the senseless charging of absolute case numbers and the political determination of the completely arbitrary 7-day incidence values, because one could recognize the development early on the basis of the “new infections” ( drosten-corona-massnahmen-neuinfektionen-herbst-winter-covid-19/komplettansicht).

Since you have already knowingly equated a positive test with a new infection, this statement can only be interpreted in the sense that you also prefer this equation in this context. In this case, however, an increase in the number of “new infections” – i.e. the number of positive test results – does not say anything at all about the occurrence of the infection.

The overall truth is quite different: It is not the virus that is spreading exponentially, but only the air bookings. The virus itself cannot spread across the board – precisely because the spread has long since progressed and basic immunity has long been present in the population.

The collateral damage of the Corona measures cannot have escaped you. By recommending a renewed lockdown on October 27, 2020, without any consideration of other threats to human life, you are personally responsible for all the damage caused by the Corona measures. In the NDR podcast of May 14, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 41, transcript p. 4), you expressed an assessment of this that is so cynical that we reproduce it here in its wording:

“These few tens of thousands, that would be something like a severe flu season in terms of pure deaths. But I think that that would be a much greater excess mortality over other years. That’s the collateral damage in health because people don’t go to the hospital because of the illness. That is, in all scenarios, again, we would not have a comparability with seasonal flu, but those are the pure cases directly caused by the virus. And that’s not what we’re recording in the excess mortality of influenza. We would have much higher excess mortality.”

In plain English, that means that not only do they know that there is collateral damage, but they have the audacity to count those who die because of corona measures as corona deaths.

You are one of the signatories of the Leopoldina paper of December 8, 2020, which recommends a hard lockdown after Christmas. Already the description of the need for action shows that you, as well as all co-signers, have completely distanced yourself from the principles of evidence-based science:
“More people died with coronavirus in the last 7 days than died on the road in 2019.”

The key thing is the preposition “with.” Not used is the preposition “on.” Thus, the authors of the paper themselves admit that they are talking about deaths for which the causality of SARS CoV-2 has not been proven. However, in the context of the rest of the text in this paragraph – clinics at breaking point, health departments overburdened, etc. – clever framing is used to create the impression that the problems in clinics have something to do with COVID-19. That this is not the case has already been explained under point 4 of this letter. Such an approach is light years away from the requirement of informed policy advice. And as far as the “new infections” between Germany and Ireland are compared in the paper, this is again based on positive PCR tests, which without sufficient data for the interpretation of the test results say nothing, but also nothing at all about the infection occurrence.


The alleged advantages of a temporary mini-lockdown had been touted by you in the podcast of October 27, 2020 (Coronavirus Update No. 62, transcript p. 5 f.): Such a measure could prove to be a circuit breaker to make up ground lost to the virus. Even then, it must have been clear to everyone that this would not be the end of the story – precisely because the cumulative case numbers from mass testing will always simulate an infection event that does not even remotely correspond to reality. Now, according to your Leopoldina paper, a tighter lockdown until January 10, 2021, is supposed to bring salvation. Who is supposed to believe that the artificially generated infection figures will fall again after January 11, 2020?

The Robert Koch Institute has admitted in the Epidemiological Bulletin No. 45/2020 (p. 20) that for weeks and with increasing tendency, the unevaluated swab samples are piling up in the laboratories – which is hardly surprising in view of the senseless mass testing of symptomless people. This evaluation will be made up for at any time in order to produce further positive test results, on the basis of which the population will then be further harassed and the German economy driven to its final ruin.
You co-signed the Leopoldina paper of December 8, 2020. You share full responsibility for its contents.

In reality, your lockdown recommendations were never designed to promise people liberation after weeks of deprivation. They are driving us all – worldwide, not just in Germany – into a permanent lockdown with their deliberately false advice in the sense of deliberate immoral harm and will be held fully liable for this under criminal and civil law.

5. Causality and attribution

You cannot escape your personal responsibility for all these damages by pointing out that it was not you, but elected politicians and duly appointed authorities who decided on all these measures leading to ruin. Rather, the damage can be attributed to you throughout as your work. It cannot have escaped your notice, and it has not escaped your notice, that your advice has a decisive influence on policy makers, and that those policy makers consult you because they themselves are unable to properly assess the risk posed by SARS CoV-2. Providing such authoritative input is the genuine task of any policy consultancy.

The penetrating power of your false assertions about the Corona situation is particularly evident in the courts: what comes out of your mouth is adopted unchecked. On July 28, when really no significant prevalence of SARS CoV-2 was detectable any more, the OVG Münster (13 B 675/20.NE) still told us completely unperturbed that it was necessary to prevent an overload of the health care systems. Only on December 4, 2020, the OVG Bremen (1 B 385/20) wanted to make us believe again that asympto- matically infected persons are particularly dangerous. These two examples prove a depressing finding:
No one protects – so far – the population in general and companies in particular from the misinformation that underlies the lockdown policy.

And for this misinformation, you, as the one whose advice those in power listen to most, are personally liable, both criminally and civilly.

Your personal responsibility for the damage described above will not change even if it should emerge in the course of a judicial hearing of evidence that the political decision-makers are deliberately misusing the Corona crisis to push through an agenda under the guise of infection protection that has nothing to do with the containment of an (alleged) pandemic, and that those decision-makers are merely drawing on your professional expertise for the apparent legitimization of their actions in order to conceal their real intentions. In this case, by making the above allegations, you have aided and abetted an immoral damage to numerous persons – and also to the immoral damage of our client – in the sense of § 830 para. 2 BGB, § 27 para. 1 StGB. Their assistance had a very significant effect on the commission of the crime. People only trusted the governments and authorities because they believed that the risk assessment was scientifically sound. And people have invested this faith precisely because of you.

It is ultimately due to your sinister advice that the health authorities can no longer keep up with the evaluation of the mass tests and the contact tracing and that the Federal Government is thus provided with a pretext to use the lever of Art. 35 GG to deploy the Bundeswehr in the contact tracing and thus to further intimidate the population. Apart from the fact that this deployment of the Bundeswehr in the field of classic intervention administration is in no way covered by the Basic Law, this is also a violation of the Basic Law.

It is finally due to your ominous advice that the health authorities are no longer behind with the evaluation of the mass tests and the contact tracing and that the Federal Government is thus provided with a pretext to use the Federal Armed Forces in the contact tracing via the lever of Art. 35 GG and thus to additionally intimidate the population.

Apart from the fact that this deployment of the Bundeswehr in the field of classic intervention administration is in no way covered by the Basic Law, your recommendations have favored a scenario that gives rise to the greatest concern. How far will the federal government go in deploying the Bundeswehr? Do we have to worry that the same soldiers who are tracking down people today (i.e. alleged contacts to allegedly infected people) will commit much worse attacks on the people tomorrow at the behest of the Federal Government?

IV. Legal Consequences

Now that we have listed, in a cursory manner and without any claim to completeness, the damage caused by the non-pharmaceutical interventions of the politicians in the Corona crisis on your advice, we now look at our client. By deliberately giving scientifically baseless recommendations to the politicians or by promoting such measures from a position of influence, you have also deliberately caused her immoral damage and are therefore liable to our client under Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) for the damage already caused. In addition, you personally must rectify the misinformation you have put into the world in an equivalent manner and in this way avert further damage from our client.

The damage already incurred amounts to several hundred thousand euros. And every day that our client’s karaoke bar is not allowed to open, the damage continues to worsen. We hereby claim in the name of and on behalf of our client a partial amount of € 50,000. We request you in the name of and on behalf of our client to pay this amount to our attention to the bank account indicated on the letterhead, power of attorney to receive is assured by a lawyer. We look forward to receiving your payment by 22.12.2020.

Our client expressly reserves the right to assert claims that exceed this initially demanded amount.

In addition, we request that you correct the following statements to those politically responsible and to the public:

– Clarify that there is no reason to believe that SARS CoV-2 could cause an uncontrollable number of deaths and ICU patients!

– Make clear that the case study in the New England Journal of Medicine of March 5, 2020, in which you were involved and which supposedly proves an asymptomatic risk of infection, is based on a false data basis and therefore should have been withdrawn long ago!

-Clarify that a positive PCR test cannot detect active infection and is therefore not suitable to establish a COVID-19 diagnosis on its own!

-Make it clear that collective restrictions of freedom do not guarantee to contribute anything to the containment of the spreading event, but cause demonstrably massive collateral damage!

-We also call on you to refrain from making statements to the contrary in the future. Politicians must no longer be advised with scientifically inadequate information. And the public must no longer be confused with such information.

We therefore call upon you to also submit by

To submit the declaration to cease and desist and to undertake the obligation attached to this letter.

Take note that with each day you maintain your willfully false risk assessment of COVID-19, you are only making matters worse – for countless people in this country, but also for yourself. For we will make this letter available to all colleagues who are willing to represent clients who have suffered harm as a result of the Corona measures.

If you do not comply with our above request, a legal dispute will become unavoidable. Within the framework of this dispute, the whole truth about the lockdown will become the subject of a judicial hearing of evidence.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.”


Link To Full Document_New Claim: Green Mango GmbH, represented by Nils Roth v. Prof Dr. Christian Drosten 15.12.2020