Below a support letter by Rafael Cantera, professor of zoology at the University of Stockholm in Sweden, addressed to the leadership of the University Clinic Würzburg. This is because two professors of this German university, Thorsten Walles and Heike Mertsching (now Walles) chose to respond to my inquiries about their earlier trachea transplants made from pig intestine (see my detailed report here) with lawyers’ financial blackmail and right after, with court actions, which had me sentenced guilty with a threat of a prison term of 6 months, without my prior knowledge (see case description here). Such are the peculiarities of German law: internet bloggers are basically legally defined here by default as criminals, and professors as infallible and divine beings (in fact, even Walleses’ former boss and collaborator Paolo Macchiarini is still a protected adjunct professor at their former common place of work, the Medical University Hannover). I received lots of support from my readers, and was also invited to give an interview with the French magazine Mediapart (German version here). Now, I am deeply grateful to Prof. Cantera for his support, and hope other international and maybe even German academics join in and sign below.

A conspiracy of German institutions against freedom of information
The Walleses even admitted to their judge in Würzburg that they did receive my questions in advance, but chose not to reply to them. They instead even revealed to the court their immediate intentions to find out my private address and had me slapped with a costly court injunction and a threat of a prison term, from the very beginning. The judge however apparently saw my act of asking inconvenient questions alone as an act of blasphemy against German professors. The only evidence against me which this Würzburg regional court judge actually bothered to scrutinise was the Walleses’ academic employment situation and their current applications to new professorships. That “evidence” fully sufficed to declare me guilty of slanderous libel against two German professors, what I actually wrote about their trachea transplants on my site was utterly irrelevant in this context. It was enough that the Walleses did not like it.
While they and their pricey lawyer prepared this legal attack on basic freedoms of speech and press, their employers, the University of Würzburg and the Fraunhofer Institute for Interfacial Engineering and Biotechnology in Stuttgart, repeatedly refused to answer any of my questions regarding those 3 tracheal transplants, even when requested to do so under legally binding freedom of information law. Most recently, I asked the Fraunhofer institute to explain if any animal testing at all was performed before their researcher Heike Walles delivered in 2007 and 2009 pig-intestine-derived tracheal grafts which her husband then implanted into two patients. The internet biomedical portal PubMed suggests that to the very least, no animal experiments at all were published by the Walleses in this regard, before or after the method was initially first tested on a human patient together with Macchiarini in Hannover in 2004.
Update 23.01.2017: The Fraunhofer Institute admitted that no animal testing was deemed necessary prior to two patient transplants. Details here.
Instead answering my questions, the University Clinic of Würzburg allowed their two professors to use these affiliations to suggest that they were actually acting in court against me as representatives of the entire University Clinic. It went as far that both the University and the University Clinic Würzburg refused to even acknowledge receiving my administrative complaints about their two professors, never mind processing those. My freedom of information inquiries to the German Ministry of Education and Research and the medicinal product watchdog Paul-Ehrlich-Institut about the Walles’ ministry-funded clinical trial and about the approvals for their previous trachea transplants, are as yet unanswered, even after the legally binding time period of one month to deliver a reply has long expired. It is none of nosy public’s business if human experiments in German research institutions (with none of the affected patients being currently alive) were ever properly approved or, if indeed these experiments actually still take place or are being prepared. The status of the aforementioned federally-funded multi-patient clinical trial with pig intestine-made trachea is confidential and not for us to know. If you want to speak of academic conspiracy in Germany, here is a big and a highly unsavoury one.
In fact, the Walles’ lawyer just sent me another threatening letter, demanding of me to accept the court injunction, pay his clients an unspecified compensation damage and him around €1800 lawyer’s fee.

Open Letter in support of Schneider’s investigation of trachea transplants in Germany, by Rafael Cantera
Prof. Dr. med. Georg Ertl, Medical Director University Clinic Würzburg, Germany.
Prof. Dr. med. Matthias Frosch, Dean of Medical Faculty, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
c/c Leonid Schneider
January 15, 2017
Dear colleagues,
For months I’ve been reading in the Swedish press as well as on Leonid Schneider’s blog For Better Science many notes about the scandalous trachea transplantations on human patients in which Dr. Paolo Macchiarini has been involved and for which he’s been, and is still investigated in Sweden. This was an extraordinary scandal for the Karolinska Institute and the Karolinska University Hospital; it has already resulted in several resignations and investigations, including a police investigation of Macchiarini himself. Fortunately, the Swedish authorities and academy adopted an open, self-critical and transparent reaction and in due process questions from journalists were answered, documents were made public, investigations were initiated and conclusions were reported to the public. For his fantastic journalistic investigation of this story “of fraudulent research” that “revealed life-threatening ambition in the academic world” the Swedish journalist Bo Lindquist was awarded the Swedish Grand Prize for Journalism in 2016.
In spite of that, according to the Swedish press and academic colleagues of mine in Sweden and other countries this scandal might have negative, perhaps long-lasting consequences on the public trust and confidence in science and medicine and so, in my opinion, it deserves to be investigated to the last link and detail. If the public trust is to be restored, every trachea transplantation in which Macchiarini and his collaborators were directly or indirectly involved should be investigated and the results must be clearly and openly reported to the public. In doing so, which as a scientist I think is necessary and important, Leonid Schneider started to investigate the activities of the German professors Heike and Thorsten Walles, who were also involved in trachea transplantations and had professional links to Macchiarini and his activities (primarily: Macchiarini et al 2004 and Walles et al, 2004).
Now, after reading about the court trial in Bavaria against Leonid Schneider, I have the unpleasant feeling that it is perhaps the intent to punish him for his investigations and to avoid further investigations of possible misconduct in German universities regarding Macchiarini-related trachea transplantations. This feeling will be supported if it was correct, I as was told, that both research institutions involved, namely the Fraunhofer Society and the University of Würzburg refused to answer questions regarding the two experimental trachea transplants on human patients they performed and later on published (Mertsching et al 2009 and Steinke et al, 2015 ). Moreover, it appears that Professors Walles acted apparently with full approval of their academic employer by using their academic affiliations with the University Clinic Würzburg. The outcome was a court injunction passed in absentia against Leonid Schneider forbidding him to state facts which Professors Walles themselves had been repeating often and widely just some years ago in interviews, press releases, books and research publications.
Leonid Schneider can count with my support and I hope you will also help him in his important investigation, answering his questions and providing as much information as you can disclose.
Yours sincerely,
Rafael Cantera, PhD
Professor
Zoology Institute, Stockholm University
Stockholm, Sweden
Dear readers, If you wish to express your support as well, please comment with your full name and institutional affiliation below.
If you would like to support my court litigation financially, donation amount doesn’t matter, please go to my Patreon site or contact me.

Donate!
If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!
€5.00
Update 4.02.2017. The signatories of this letter have been subjected to an “alternative facts” campaign by Walles’ employee Jan Hansmann. Details here.


I fully support the letter and Leonid Schneider. And of course, freedom of speech.
James C. Coyne, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry in Psychology
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA, USA
LikeLiked by 1 person
Count me in. I support the letter.
Lambert Heller, academic librarian, Hannover (Germany)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly support this letter by Professor Rafael Cantera in support of Leonid Schneider.
Carlos J. Blondel
Academic Researcher,
Universidad Autónoma de Chile,
Santiago, Chile
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly support the letter in support of Leonid Schneider.
Jack Wilkinson
University of Manchester
Manchester
United Kingdom
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly support the letter in support of Leonid Schneider.
Anders Lanzen, PhD
Zumaia, Spain
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also support this letter in support of Leonid Schneider
Edward Morrow
School of Life Sciences
University of Sussex
United Kingdom
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also support this letter in support of Leonid Schneider
Sam Yeaman
Biological Sciences
University of Calgary
Canada
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with this letter from Rafael Cantera in support of Leonid Schneider and the exposure of research malpractice.
Austin Smith
Cambridge Stem Cell Institute
United Kingdom
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would like to add my support to this letter.
Harry Leitch
Institute of Clinical Sciences
Imperial College London
UK
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am adding my support as well.
Open, even critical, fact-based assessments of biomedical science are vital and threats against transparency must be countered.
Paul Knoepfler
UC Davis School of Medicine
Sacramento, CA USA
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fully support this letter and the important work of Leonid Schneider for the transparency of science.
Hector Hernandez-Vargas, MD, PhD
IARC
Lyon, France
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fully support the investigantional journalism of Leonid Schneider, transparent and evidence-based science, and reject the attempts of all individuals and institutions acting in opposite manner.
Tomo Saric
Center for Physiology and Pathophysiology
University of Cologne, Germany
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is distressing to read about attempt to suppress information in this manner. It is not the first time I’ve seen misbehaving scientists use the courts to stifle academic discourse. We must stand against this in these dangerous times.
Mary Mangan, PhD
Somerville, MA USA
LikeLiked by 1 person
I strongly support this letter by Professor Rafael Cantera in support of Leonid Schneider.
Bodo Brückner, Dr. rer. nat.
Heidelberg, Germany
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also strongly support the the letter of Prof. Cantera in this matter. The action of the involved universities is more than questionable.
Christian Praetorius, PhD
Dresden, Germany
LikeLike
I would like to voice my support for Professor Rafael Cantera in support of Leonid Schneider. Openness and the right to be able to question findings are vital to helping move science forward.
Marc Sze, PhD
Ann Arbor, USA
LikeLiked by 1 person
I support the letter of Prof. Cantera. It is deeply troubling when science becomes mixed with litigation in this manner. A Court injunction to suppress information that is already in the public domain is both self-serving and absurd.
Prof. M.R. Blatt FRSE FRSB
Regius Professor of Botany
Glasgow University
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fully support the letter of Prof. Cantera, Leonid’s work, freedom of press and investigative journalism.
Victor Tatarskiy, PhD.
Research Scientist
Russian Cancer Center
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish to express my support for Leonid Schneider’s investigative journalism. I may not always agree with his stridency but his motives in exposing corrupt and illegal scientific practices are entirely praiseworthy.
I think it is morally reprehensible for academics and academic institutions to sic lawyers and threats on journalists. Both our professions deal with truth and the freedom of speech is the truth’s surest defence.
Devang Mehta, MRes & DIC
PhD Fellow,
ETH Zurich
LikeLiked by 1 person
I support this letter of Prof. Cantera in support of Leonid Schneider and independent investigative journalism!
Zhanna Alekseenko, PhD
Department of Cell and Molecular Biology,
Karolinska Institutet
LikeLiked by 1 person