The Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which they call the “internal spying agency,” targeted Heinrich Fichtner as a significant figure in what they describe as “constitutionally relevant diminishment of state power.” The reason? Expressing an opinion. Is Germany sliding into authoritarianism under the mask of “democracy”?
Why do you think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hasn’t advocated for the removal of the COVID-19 vaccine from the official vaccination schedule?
Well, the COVID vaccine is still listed on the CDC website—they’re still actively promoting it. Just a few weeks ago, we received a letter detailing reimbursement for vaccinations, and COVID vaccines were included on that list. For most physicians, the focus is on reimbursement—they’re not necessarily thinking about how the vaccine works, its efficacy, or potential side effects. It’s more like, “I administer it, and I get paid.”
Thanks to Robert Kennedy Jr., at least some of these assumptions have been challenged. He’s raised important questions, making it acceptable for people to scrutinize these vaccines, especially given that it’s becoming increasingly clear these substances don’t function like traditional vaccines.
However, the resistance from the pharmaceutical industry—and those supporting it—is immense. The industry has even been shielded from liability for vaccine side effects since the Reagan administration. Reagan was persuaded that if companies were held liable, they might stop producing vaccines altogether, so the government effectively removed that accountability. That protection remains in place today, which makes it extremely difficult to challenge the system or alter the status quo.
In essence, the concept of vaccines has been deeply ingrained—not just in medical practice but in the minds and hearts of the public. But Kennedy is asking the right questions. His efforts have opened space for discussion, and I hope over time, reason and transparency will prevail, giving people the freedom to think critically about these issues.
Let’s talk about the court cases that have been leveled against you over the past two years. Where exactly do you stand in the court proceedings? Also, could you share a bit about how you’ve been treated? You mentioned you might—or perhaps already are—banned from traveling to the U.S. Is that restriction coming from the U.S. government, or from the German government?
I believe the restrictions came from the U.S. government under Joe Biden’s administration. Last year, I was trying to travel to the U.S. to visit family. I already had an ESTA approval, but just a few days before my scheduled flight, I received a message from the consulate notifying me of a change. When I checked, I saw that my visa had been refused.
Every time I tried to obtain a visitor visa at the U.S. consulate in Munich, I was denied. I eventually went in person, paid the fee, and stood in line. I finally spoke with a consular officer, who asked many questions. I explained the ongoing legal proceedings I’m involved in, and she told me I could not enter the U.S. until all these lawsuits were resolved. She handed me a piece of paper, and just like that, my flight was gone, my plans to see my family were ruined.
I used to travel to the U.S. every year for the ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) meetings, both for training and for professional exchange with colleagues. Now, that’s no longer possible. I believe this travel ban was implemented under the Biden administration. I have publicly criticized both President Biden and Vice President Harris on social media, which I think may have contributed to this situation.
I suspect the U.S. intelligence services have flagged me as problematic because of my political stance—opposing Biden and supporting Donald Trump. This may have led to my exclusion from entering the country. For me, this is deeply troubling and disheartening.
Back in 2020, when I believed Trump had been reelected, I congratulated him in parliament that morning, despite hearing about the reported election irregularities the night before. I personally felt it was the right thing to do, even though many considered it controversial. As we know, Trump did not serve a second term then, but now he has returned as president for a third time.
I was watching the election that evening as well—never seen anything like it. Absolutely astonishing. But let’s turn back to your court case: they’re attempting to revoke your medical license and push you toward bankruptcy, correct?
Well, I’m currently embroiled in a high-profile criminal case involving multiple charges, all of which I believe are politically motivated. The proceedings have been marked by repeated violations of my rights, procedural manipulations, and a refusal to admit key evidence. Many of my bias and evidence motions have been dismissed outright.
I’ve been working closely with an investigator and journalist who calls himself “strictlynocomment,” submitting findings to the court, but the system has been extremely difficult to navigate. A recent, surprising development is that Judge Tilman Wagner, who has overseen much of the case, decided to retire early at 63. I couldn’t believe it. I had hoped he would step down because I found him incapable of acting lawfully, but I did not expect it to actually happen—especially in the middle of this politically charged trial.
Prior to his retirement, he rejected one of my appeals simply because I was absent from a hearing that should never have been scheduled according to procedural deadlines. His departure seems to reflect, in part, my persistent resistance: dozens of evidence motions, repeated bias claims, and standing firm despite threats to be forcibly brought to court while ill, both physically and psychologically. The court even questioned my medical certificates and openly doubted the severity of a hypertensive crisis I was at risk for.
So that’s the situation. This case also involves an extraordinary element—a “threat of torture” order—which makes my circumstances particularly unusual and concerning.
Can you please go into more detail about that?
After my smartphone was seized, I was surrounded by four police officers. One held an order against me, while another took my phone from my chest. According to the written order from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, they were authorized to use force if necessary to unlock it. This included holding my head still and even prying open my eyelids for facial recognition—an act that would clearly constitute torture under both German and international law. I found all of this in the court documents related to the case against me.
The order explicitly allowed them to forcibly open my phone if I did not provide my PIN. I raised this with Judge Wagner and told him it amounted to torture. He reacted by saying, “This is too much.” I asked him directly, “Are you saying the prosecutors torture people all the time?” The judge replied, “Dear Dr. Fiechtner, that’s too much to claim. But yes, this is covered under German criminal procedure law.”
I was stunned. A judge who believes such actions are legally permissible should resign immediately. Yet, this seems to be the prevailing attitude: they act with impunity because, until now, no one has challenged them. I have now made formal accusations, and the initial response is predictable—they are rejecting the complaint to protect themselves.
What has been your lawyers’ response to this situation, specifically with respect to the incident where authorities forced you to use your eyes to unlock your phone? How have your attorneys addressed this?
The authorities took into consideration to use force. At that point, my attorney didn’t really comment on the situation. That’s part of a bigger problem—too many lawyers end up siding with the regime. Many of them are just there to shepherd you from one hearing to the next, acting more like a company guiding a process than defending a person. This makes a huge difference. I’ve encountered several issues with attorneys behaving this way, and it’s deeply troubling and unsettling.
You’ve mentioned that this persecution has also extended to people close to you. Could you elaborate on that?”
Yes, I have a close acquaintance who has faced severe harassment from state authorities, simply for knowing me. He has been repeatedly arrested in large police operations, had his dog forcibly taken under false psychiatric claims, and continues to receive threats, all while authorities claim he is violent—even though there is no evidence to support these accusations. He is still under constant pressure, with police regularly showing up and oppressing him.
Of course, this is taking a heavy toll on his mental state. He becomes panicked whenever the police are around. This is exactly their method: they aim to instill terror in people through raids and other forms of intimidation, silencing anyone who might criticize politicians or speak out. The message is clear: if you voice dissent, you too could be subjected to early-morning raids. This creates panic in families—wives terrified, children disillusioned and afraid—affecting people long after the events themselves.
This is a widespread problem in the Federal Republic of Germany. You’ve seen reports on television of state prosecutors boasting about campaigns against so-called hate speech, raiding hundreds of homes, confiscating smartphones and computers, and terrorizing entire households without restriction. Fathers, mothers, and children alike are caught in this oppressive cycle. The result is an atmosphere of fear and intimidation—something that must be challenged.
In this regard, I believe we need international attention and support. We need voices like Donald Trump, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and others to help shed light on what is happening. Germany, once a beacon of liberty and hope—a symbol of the transition from tyranny to freedom—is now regressing. I remember the lessons my father taught me, and this is why I feel compelled to speak out and resist these developments.
If I had the chance to speak directly to JD Vance, Marco Rubio, or Donald Trump, I would focus on Donald Trump first. He is such an exceptional leader, and I would be honored to speak with him. Next to him, I would address JD Vance, whose comments at the Munich Security Conference I followed closely. I would tell him: Please, continue speaking out. Bring these issues into the public eye. Make them a part of American foreign policy concerning Germany. Repeat the message over and over, using real examples from this country.
We urgently need your help because the system in the Federal Republic of Germany remains deeply corrupted. Brutal individuals operate with impunity across multiple sectors, collaborating without consequence. Please, help us bring change. Help us give the German people a chance to be free from this tyranny.
Before, we’ve discussed your lack of faith in the German judicial system and its ability to deliver justice. Given that, what do you think will happen with your cases?
I’m quite concerned now because Tilman Wagner, the former judge, has resigned. The situation is very uncertain. Whoever replaces him will have to go through an enormous amount of material—around 3,000 pages—and decide for themselves whether this trial should continue or be closed. My hope is that they will simply close it. The best outcome, of course, would be for them to declare me not guilty, which would be fair, but I doubt that will happen. They still seem determined to press the case, and I am one of the dissenters. I am also mentioned in the 2022 report of the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Baden-Württemberg as a prominent representative of state-delegitimizing tendencies.
For those that do not know, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is somewhat like the FBI in the U.S. They call it “internal espionage” or surveillance, and I am listed as a significant figure in what they call “constitutionally relevant diminishment of state power.” In 2021, a new category was added to target those critical of COVID measures, and I am one of the most prominent representatives of that critical perspective.
The system is trying to intimidate people—to silence dissent. If I am imprisoned, fined 70,000 euros, plus the likely additional costs bringing it to around 100,000 euros, and have my medical license taken away, it’s not just a financial blow—it’s an attack on my honor, reputation, and career. To them, opposing this regime is enough to justify punishing me, regardless of what I’ve contributed in decades of service.
The people behind this truly believe they are right. Their mindset is deeply perverted—they’ve internalized a structure where they think it’s perfectly acceptable to treat a physician, a palliative care doctor like myself, in such a manner. I hope justice will prevail, but my expectation is that they will attempt to convict me. I am reaching out for help—from outside Germany, from anyone who can see the injustice—not just for me, but for my family. This is the result of the system built under Angela Merkel and those who supported her policies, which I openly criticized in Parliament.
Do you believe your lawyers are capable of effectively representing you?
No, because they’re all a part of the regime.
Are there not some lawyers who are more sympathetic to AfD’s position?
It is not about supporting the AfD’s positions. It is about ensuring that justice and the rule of law are upheld at all. And here, unfortunately, the situation looks rather bleak. Most lawyers are little more than companions to conviction, making sure that the defendant remains calm during the trial, lulled into a sense of security, only to realize too late that a conviction awaits in the end. True defenders — those who care that the trial is conducted properly, that all evidence is considered, and whose goal is to achieve the best possible outcome for the defendant — are, in my perception, quite rare.”There are not many lawyers who are oriented in this way. I am working with one, Edgar Siemund, whom I got to know through the trials against critics of the COVID measures, for example soldiers who had refused to take the so-called gene-based injection. He is representing me in another case. A few other lawyers are also friendly toward the AfD. One of my closest friends is Laurens Nothdurft, who has also represented me and managed to have the ban on the conservative patriotic Compact magazine, which had been imposed by Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, overturned.
And do you have a lawyer issued to you by the state?
Yes, I have one issued by the state. The first lawyer I had was a member of parliament for the CDU. While they claim not to act as an “execution company,” the way these cases are handled often feels exactly like that.
Now, I’m working with an attorney handling a revision, and she has so many questions. Sometimes I ask myself, “Why don’t you do the research yourself? Why do I always have to track these points?” For example, checking meeting dates across certain lines or ensuring proper procedures are followed. I end up having to do much of the work myself.
If I hadn’t taken action personally, I would have already been judged back in March or April of this year. I work day and night, researching legal issues, spotting illegalities, and addressing procedural gaps. So far, I have submitted more than 50 evidence-related questions and filed about 30 motions for judicial recusal, based on the actions of the judge and other judges involved in my case.
So you’re basically representing yourself?
Yes, exactly. And this is what I want to say to anyone else in a similar situation: you have to be very careful. You need to be diligent and take responsibility for your own case most of the time.
If you have a good attorney, they will respect your actions and work with you as a team. But with a typical attorney, it can be very different—they might become envious or frustrated with what you do, because they want to control the process themselves, regardless of where it leads.
The post Interview with Former AfD MP Dr. Heinrich Fiechtner: They threatened to torture me to unlock my Phone — This is Merkel’s legacy (Part 2) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.