Vaccine injuries: Ignored by authorities and courts

Wilfried Schmitz: Not at all, whether it is civil or criminal courts, and that was clear by the end of 2024 at the latest. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or deliberately concealing the truth from people, and I cannot think of any honest motive for it.
In the civil cases, BioNTech’s and Moderna’s lawyers consistently cite long lists of court decisions and claim that they, or rather the pharmaceutical companies, have won every single case in the civil courts where they have been sued for damages and compensation for pain and suffering. And these dismissals of claims were regularly based – regardless of the facts – on the assertion that the benefit-risk ratio of these modRNA mixtures was in fact positive, because the relevant authorities and their committees had after all claimed that.
Criminal proceedings against those responsible for the so-called “anti-corona measures” and the Covid-19 injection-related injuries are completely pointless, and this should be common knowledge for any lawyer who has followed the case law of recent years or even has personal experience with “corona case law.” I witnessed this in selected, clear cases up to the end of 2024. Otherwise I would have taken on additional clients if even one of these cases had resulted in an indictment. But that did not happen, and I publicly declared at the end of 2024 that such criminal complaints are currently useless. There is simply no serious investigation; everything is rejected with empty standard phrases, sometimes so quickly that it is obvious the authorities could not possibly have read the annexes to these complaints in such a short time.
It has never been reported that anyone responsible for Covid-19 injection injuries has even been charged, let alone convicted. Who would believe that criminal charges against those responsible for Covid-19 injection injuries could achieve anything when civil lawsuits have already failed?! Criminal sanctions against such suspects would certainly send far greater shockwaves through the accomplices than mere civil liability.
This is the current reality, and it must be made clear to all victims and, where relevant, their legal expenses insurance companies, not only out of decency, before new comparable lawsuits are initiated or people are encouraged to file or participate in criminal proceedings. Anything else is, in my opinion, completely dishonest.
And anyone who criticizes me for telling people the truth should ask themselves what is wrong with them and why they also want to suppress the truth. Is it perhaps so that as many victims as possible will participate in a campaign that, with a high degree of certainty, has no chance of success and that essentially throws money away?
But there have been successful lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.
There are only a few successful civil actions against drug manufacturers seeking information under § 84a of the German Medicines Act, but whether this information will ultimately lead to the enforcement of payment claims – for which the federal government would then assume responsibility – is an entirely different question.
Given the results so far, it is very likely that the data released through these disclosure proceedings will not change the fact that the civil courts will continue simply to assess the demonstrably negative benefit-risk ratio of the modRNA injections Spikevax and Comirnaty as positive and will ultimately continue to reject all payment claims as unfounded.
One should therefore not pretend that anything fundamental has changed in this cynical case law, or that a breakthrough has finally been achieved, merely because civil courts have had to grant such requests for information due to the mandatory legal situation.
Why are you so convinced that the newly published data will not change anything?
In his two expert opinions on Comirnaty and Spikevax, Dr. Hans-Joachim Kremer explicitly clarified in the introduction why the respective placebo-controlled studies of Comirnaty and Spikevax, due to their design and scope, represent the best possible evidence a “vaccine” can have. Subsequent observational studies, even those with significantly larger sample sizes, can in no way call into question the conclusions regarding efficacy and benefit drawn on the basis of these authorization studies. And this essentially applies to all data collected by pharmaceutical companies after the marketing authorization of their modRNA vaccines.
In other words, if civil courts have so far rejected such payment claims, even despite Dr. Kremer’s excellent analyses and expert opinions, which are based on the manufacturers’ own data from the authorization studies – among other things with the claim that it is allegedly only “individuals” who “dare” to question the allegedly highest professional competence of the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the European Medicines Agency and their committees – then this case law will certainly not change merely because data of second- or third-rate importance are now taken into account in the reassessment of the benefit-risk ratio of modRNA injections.
Even if the courts were to appoint experts to deal with this question, what conclusions would they then likely reach if they were not completely independent, courageous and open to criticism?
Moreover, to date I have not received a single “success story” that specifies the court, the date of the judgment and the case number, indicating that a victim of Covid-19 injections has successfully sued for damages and compensation for pain and suffering, or that a public prosecutor’s office has brought charges against a Covid-19 injection doctor or any other person responsible for the Covid-19 injection campaign, or that a criminal court has even delivered a conviction based on such charges after hearing the evidence. I have repeatedly and publicly called for such “success stories” – if they exist – to be shared with me. As expected, nothing has come of it.