This interview conducted by Alexander Junger was initially published by Eagle Eye Explore on September 18th, 2025. Edited for clarity and coherence, this piece is republished here with permission from Eagle Eye Explore.
Once a member of Germany’s AfD party, Dr. Heinrich Ekkehard Fiechtner now stands as a vivid illustration of what it means to be targeted in an increasingly authoritarian atmosphere. A medico with over three decades of experience in oncology and palliative care, Dr. Fiechtner faces a torrent of persecution from an alleged corrupt and regime-loyal judiciary intent on quelling dissent. His ‘crime’? Critiquing COVID protocols, deriding mask mandates, and questioning governmental authority. The repercussions? Extensive fines, threats to his medical license, imprisonment, and even police actions reminiscent of the least desirable chapters from Germany’s past. This account serves as both a testimony and a clarion call.
Many readers in Europe and the U.S. may already have some awareness of the situation unfolding in Germany. But before we dive into your personal trials—if we can indeed label them as such—I’d like you to elucidate the broader context. How would you characterize the escalating authoritarian environment in Germany and its effects on overall freedom of expression, especially for critics in the digital realm and ordinary citizens subjected to home raids for online activity? Additionally, could you outline how we arrived at this juncture under the leadership of Merz, Scholz, and previously Merkel?
Thank you for this opportunity to share my insights. Over recent decades, the landscape in Germany has grown progressively draconian, with the most seismic shifts occurring during the COVID crisis. Topics once considered sacred have become practically untouchable, making open criticism nearly impossible—particularly discussions surrounding Germany’s historical context. Many understandably fear rekindling memories of darker times, but even referencing those periods can land you in legal hot water.
Critics of the mainstream narrative—those advocating extreme social ideologies or radical policies—are met with fervent backlash from the establishment. The tactics employed today are reminiscent of life in East Germany prior to reunification, echoing actions taken against dissenters.
In the years leading up to and particularly during the Corona restrictions, dissenters faced severe penalties—many were prosecuted, fined, or imprisoned. A recent case involved Dr. Heinrich Habig, who received a three-year sentence for issuing vaccination certificates without administering actual vaccines. The Bochum court found him guilty of falsifying medical records, effectively committing a criminal act by violating public health mandates. Ironically, his actions protected those wishing to avoid the risky mRNA vaccines.
Dr. Habig had to return to prison last week, despite already serving over a year for similar charges. This is the grim reality in Germany today for anyone who dares to question the regime. I refer to it as a regime because it appears to have forsaken the principles of justice, legality, and democracy, taking on an increasingly tyrannical persona that serves as a harrowing warning to nations regarding power and its consequences. This situation demands exposure, resistance, and cessation.
Sadly, the environment has deteriorated to a point where support from outside may be crucial. Without it, we risk reverting to a system we believed we had escaped decades ago, aided by the Allies.
In a recent development, the Rubio State Department released its annual Human Rights Report, sharply condemning the German government for its blatant assaults on free speech and aggressive tactics to silence dissent. The report also criticized the UK for similar overreach and condemned Romania’s government for groundlessly alleging that its election had been tampered with by Russia, using that pretext to annul results and eliminate competition.
You’ve faced charges stemming from what was perceived as satirical critique of government excess during the COVID period. Could you elucidate those instances—what you said, what actions you took, and how the authorities interpreted them?
Indeed, you refer to my actions involving a historical gesture, employed in a satirical twist. On two distinct occasions, I found myself in court primarily due to this conduct.
Take, for instance, my moment at the Brandenburg Gate, where I remarked about the mask: “Here I stand with the symbol of our era, representative of Angela Merkel’s regime—a ‘diamond of terror.’ Behind this mask, I can’t breathe; my glasses fog up, I feel faint—this emblem of subjugation must be removed.”
What I was articulating was clear: the mask mandate was less about health and more about enforcing political obedience—void of medical rationale. This imitates, disturbingly, the totalitarian standards of yesteryears.
Addressing the gesture: The entire situation is laced with irony, as my right hand is missing, rendering any salute I might offer akin to a forced cripple’s salute. I pointed out my anatomical limitation—they dragged me to court based on my satire. The judges claimed I was endorsing tyranny or fostering support for a dictatorial regime; in stark contrast, my intent was outright criticism. This misinterpretation served merely as a tool for intimidation, intended to punish or silence those of us brave enough to dissent.
For readers unfamiliar with the nuances of German law, can you explain the legalities surrounding certain banned gestures? When leveraged critically or satirically, are they still considered illegal, or is there supposed to be some distinction?
It largely depends on your positioning regarding today’s regime. For proponents of the avant-garde ‘woke’ narrative, such gestures can be performed under the guise of satire without consequence—leftist comedians often walk this line unharmed. Politicians have engaged in similar mimicry; yet when I draw attention to these instances, nothing happens. Such cases disappear without repercussions.
Conversely, if one stands in opposition, any attempt at satire is interpreted harshly, swiftly met with legal action and punishment. The law is not applied equitably; it operates as a tool to stifle opposition, ensuring compliance through fear. Courts and politicians clad themselves in a selective application of draconian laws, targeting critics while protecting their own supporters.
When did your critical stance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic crystallize? Was it early in the pandemic?
Initially, I was swept up in the uncertainty. Like many physicians, I felt the anxiety and trepidation regarding my medical practice’s future. My experiences with public health scares—think BSE or the flu—left me wary of mass hysteria dominating rational thought.
Upon hearing about the virus outbreak in Wuhan, I accepted the notion that masks could be helpful. However, my wife introduced me to a critical analysis on YouTube, prompting me to delve into the research myself. To my surprise, I found that masks offered very little practical benefit—abandoning their roles even in clinical environments except in select situations.
Simultaneously, I began to question the virus’s actual severity, tracing back to the work of John Ioannidis, who demonstrated that the mortality rates were far less catastrophic than the doomsday scenarios portrayed. By February or March of 2020, I unequivocally altered my views, recognizing the measures as a systematic encroachment on civil liberties and well-being.
Given your expertise in oncology and palliative care, were you directly engaged in treating COVID-19 patients during the pandemic?
Yes, patients sought my assistance, as I was among the few doctors willing to keep my practice open to all, regardless of whether they wore masks. I allowed people to come in, either alone or accompanied by family, unless someone explicitly reported a positive COVID test—then I advised them to stay outside, not out of fear, but to safeguard my practice from governmental interference.
With patients presenting respiratory symptoms, fever, or anxiety, I provided care. Yet the testing cushioned my approach—the lack of sensitivity and specificity meant we could not definitively identify whether symptoms stemmed from COVID, flu, or yet another ailment. To me, it felt like a flu-like illness needing adequate treatment.
During this time, I encountered the “Zelensky Protocol,” originated by a physician in New York, and carefully adopted it. The results were telling: every patient I treated recovered, with no fatalities—remarkably encouraging outcomes considering the circumstances.
Reflecting on the patients you treated during the pandemic, how did their conditions compare against public narratives of dire hospitalizations and fatalities? What did you observe?
I managed only two severe cases. One patient was intubated after I exhausted every effort to evade mechanical ventilation—I understood that it often exacerbated conditions. My philosophy centered on keeping patients out of hospitals where possible, providing treatment on an outpatient basis to avoid risky methods that prevailed elsewhere.
In one case, a patient came to me late in his illness, facing significant respiratory distress. Ultimately, I had no alternative but to direct him to the hospital, where he was intubated following my advice. Although he was initially received poorly, he eventually managed to extubate himself after roughly ten days, astonishing the medical staff with his rapid recovery.
Let’s pivot to COVID-19 vaccinations. Recently, Bobby Kennedy noted that nations with lower vaccination rates seemed to have achieved better health outcomes, while the U.S., with a significantly higher vaccination rate, accounted for a concerning percentage of global COVID-19 fatalities. What is your perspective on these vaccines? Were they hurriedly developed and flawed, or is there a more complex situation at play?
Bobby Kennedy raises a pivotal point about vaccinations that warrants serious discussion. The topic of vaccination has developed a cult-like reverence within the medical community—a sentiment often instilled since the 20th century. Those who harbor skepticism about vaccines frequently encounter resistance, relegating them to being branded as ‘not proper’ doctors.
Historically, researchers made empirical strides in vaccine development, fostering a strong cultural belief around them, which persists to this day. Yet upon scrutinizing the post-COVID vaccine data, I discern a troubling lack of rigorous clinical trials assessing both efficacy and adverse effects—a glaring gap highlighted by Kennedy’s concerns.
The nature of COVID-19 vaccines complicates this discourse even further. Traditional vaccines involve using weakened or inactive forms of pathogens, promoting immunity; alternatively, COVID-19 vaccines employ genetic technology that prompts the body to produce proteins. This fundamental shift ignites grave concerns regarding safety and prolonged consequences that remain unaddressed.
Misleading terminologies coined by politicians and media outlets, branding these genetic interventions merely as ‘vaccines,’ obscure this critical difference. Individuals were misled to think they were receiving standard vaccines while, in reality, they engaged in novel interventions with unpredictable biological ramifications—from severe illnesses to rare instances of sudden mortality or chronic medical conditions.
Thus, although vaccination maintains a storied and complicated history, the COVID-19 vaccines usher in an unprecedented array of variables necessitating a candid and thorough examination of their implications.
In the aftermath of the pandemic, what types of long-term effects have you recognized in your patients?
While my practice isn’t vast—I see a few hundred patients quarterly, so I can hardly render statistically significant conclusions—my observations are striking. In vaccinated patients, I’ve noted an alarming trend of cancer progression that appears to accelerate maliciously, emulating a pre-chemotherapy landscape for pancreatic cancer, where life expectancy is merely months.
While lacking precise statistics, the pattern remains troubling. I repeatedly observe that the vascular systems of vaccinated patients seem altered; veins previously accessible become difficult to work with, presenting as jelly-like and posing challenges for treatment.
For instance, I treated an elderly patient diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who had received three vaccine doses; obtaining a blood sample from him required five attempts due to the unusual quality of his veins. In my extensive oncology career, spanning back to 1996, I have never encountered such striking changes, and I’ve witnessed similar reports from fellow practitioners.
A late colleague, pathologist Arne Burkhardt, also observed peculiarities during autopsies, drawing connections to vaccinations and requesting further analysis. Preliminary investigations indicated that spike proteins congregating in veins could generate jelly-like formations, causing coagulopathy independently of standard processes. His untimely death raises troubling questions, hinting that these findings might have attracted unwelcome attention.
In summary, my extensive career in oncology has yet to prepare me for the obscure changes we are documenting today. The last five years reveal concerning trends, pushing us beyond merely anecdotal impressions toward a pressing need for further inquiry.
