Virologist before committee: signatories of a Leopoldina statement from November 2021 did not recommend “compulsory vaccination for the entire population” / Journalist: “outright lie” / Legal expert: false unsworn statements by Drostens “plausible “12 September 2025 Dresden.
Source: Multipolar, 12 September 2025, cover picture
The public prosecutor’s office in Dresden is examining statements made by virologist Christian Drosten as an expert witness before the Corona Investigation Committee of the Saxon State Parliament. This was announced by the public prosecutor’s office on request. Specifically, it concerns the statement of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina co-signed by Drosten on 27th November 2021, which, among other things, dealt with a general vaccination obligation.
Drosten denied before the committee of enquiry on 21 August that the signatories of the statement had “recommended compulsory vaccination for the entire population”. Rather, the content and concern was: “We recommend that politicians review the basic legal requirements for a population-wide compulsory vaccination programme.” Journalist Aya Velázquez, who was present at the hearing, described this as a “outright lie by Drosten about the controversial Leopoldina recommendation”. In addition, Drosten said that at the time the Leopoldina statement was published, it was not yet known “that the Omikron wave would come very shortly afterwards” – and that the Omikron variant of the virus would “attenuate mortality and pathogenesis to a certain extent”.
In fact, the Leopoldina statement also includes “preparations for the introduction of a general compulsory vaccination programme, taking into account the necessary legal and social framework conditions” in a list of recommendations. The statement goes on to say: “The introduction of a general compulsory vaccination programme is also ethically and legally justified under the current circumstances, which could not have been foreseen a year ago: as a final measure to close a vaccination gap that obviously cannot be closed in any other way.” This is the only way to protect citizens from further “disastrous consequences”. Regarding Omikron, the authors write: “The emergence of new virus variants – such as the current Omikron variant – which could be more infectious, makes rapid and consistent action even more urgent.”
When asked by Multipolar about these contradictions, Christian Drosten replies that the quote on the “introduction of a general vaccination obligation” as a “last resort” comes from the “final chapter, which makes a scientific-ethical judgement and is clearly labelled as such”. This “scientific field” does not fall within his “technical expertise”. He therefore recommends: “Please feel free to consult the authors of the statement, who are appropriately qualified.”
The statement on Omikron also “does not contradict” the Leopoldina statement from November 2021. Drosten emphasised to Multipolar that it was not “foreseeable” at the time “that Omikron would become a dominant variant in Germany”. Nor was “the weakened characteristics of the Omikron variant recognisable at that time”. At the time, there was even data “that suggested a change in severity in an unfavourable direction in countries with a predominant distribution of Omikron – especially South Africa”. As these data were “rudimentary and contradictory”, it was “responsible to work with a precautionary approach”. However, on the day the Leopoldina statement was published, Angelique Coetzee, Chairperson of the South African Medical Association (SAMA), commented on the Omikron variant: “Given the mild symptoms we are currently seeing, there is no need to panic as we are not seeing any severely ill patients.”
Volker Boehme-Neßler, Professor of Public Law at the Carl von Ossietzky University in Oldenburg, believes it is “plausible” that Drosten “made false unsworn statements” to the Saxon Corona Investigation Committee. The legal scholar explained in an interview with Multipolar that the objective side must first be examined. “Professor Drosten did not express an opinion or a subjective assessment in Dresden. They were statements of fact.” However, this would only be punishable if Drosten had acted with intent. This is also “well justifiable”. Drosten knew exactly what he was saying. “And that’s exactly what he wanted to say. That is not a slip of the tongue or other negligence.”
Whether the offence of “false unsworn testimony” under Section 153 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) has been committed must now be examined by the responsible public prosecutor’s office in Dresden. In the event of a final conviction, the law provides for a prison sentence of three months to five years. According to the lawyer, false testimony before a parliamentary committee of enquiry (Section 162 StGB) would be an “official offence” in which the competent public prosecutor’s office must investigate as soon as it becomes aware of facts that give rise to an initial suspicion. When asked about Drosten’s statements on the Leopoldina statement to the Saxon Corona Investigation Committee, the Dresden public prosecutor’s office confirmed in response to a Multipolar enquiry: “The facts of the case are known here and are being examined for possible criminal relevance.” However, the investigation will “take some time”.
