The Kafkaesque farce of court injunction trials from German trachea transplanters against me continues. The Landesgericht court in Berlin issued a second injunction against me, as requested by the angel of innocence Philipp Jungebluth, the former right hand man and acolyte of Paolo Macchiarini. The target of the injunction is this article, concerning an unpublished Macchiarini paper Haag et al. As it practice in German law, this legally binding verdict, the breach of which is punishable by a fine of up to €250,000, was passed without allowing me to present my evidence. In fact, Jungebluth also was not asked to present any evidence, his word that I wronged him sufficed. The legal idea behind such injunctions “the element of surprise”, that is, to present the other party with a binding court verdict, a huge bill for it, followed by a huge fine for any alleged breach of the injunction, the pretext for which is always easy to conjure, all of which should discourage any attempts to fight back. You are expected to lose your court case without even knowing there was one going on. Germans think this is a great and just way to keep internet and other media at bay.

So this is obviously a financially heavily mismatched war of Macchiarini and his partners against me, with all the media who used to celebrate their (now known as lethal) human experiments suddenly very silent. I am however grateful for the past and current support of my readers, and ask you to keep donating. Because nobody in Germany cares about these dead and mutilated patients, who were all foreigners experimented upon abroad anyway. 

Jungebluth achieved his first injunction against me by presenting himself as a miracle doctor whose work with plastic tracheas saved lives of patients and brought him publications in the elite journal The Lancet, international news coverage and ongoing welcoming admiration in the scientific and academic community (read here). The court agreed that such an eminent medical scientist must never be suspected to have abandoned his near-completed thoracic surgery training and research in general on anything else but his own volition, and issued in injunction. In the course of my defence, I proved that those deadly trachea transplants were under misconduct investigation by Swedish authorities, including by state prosecutor, that Jungebluth was repeatedly found guilty of research misconduct in Sweden by external investigators and hat to retract two publications by now, that he was wilfully falsely pretending to have a PhD degree and in this way to have obtained job and funding in Sweden dishonestly (both were revoked exactly for this), and that he assisted Macchiarini’s transplant operations in Sweden without having a licence to practice medicine, as it is well documented, published and officially proven by Swedish authorities (read all here). Jungebluth initially denied all of that and threatened a legal proceedings against me which however never happened.

Faced with my evidence, his lawyer however simply declared in court that it cannot be “once a criminal, always a criminal”, and that the past of his client suddenly does not matter at all, now that it proved the exact opposite of the heroic version originally presented. The court surprisingly agreed. While Jungebluth’s alleged fame and glory from Macchiarini’s past trachea transplants were decisive to get him that court injunction he wanted, he suddenly was supported by the very same court on his alleged right to have nothing to do with those same transplants, after my counter-evidence was submitted. Still, that original injunction was meanwhile lifted by 2/3, the case is now with the higher court (Oberlandesgericht) of the state Berlin, availing court date appointment.

The new injunction was granted Jungebluth because he declared to have never performed any clinical activities in Italy, and to have only “watched on” during the two trachea transplant operations in Spain, the second one of which was performed illegally, against a denied ethics vote and in secret (read here). I was court-ordered to remove all references in that regard from this article, which all were my interpretations of this quote from Jungebluth’s own manuscript:

” P.J. assisted in clinical transplantations…”

Jungebluth never denied that this quote is indeed present in his own unpublished manuscript, which concerns five trachea transplant operations in Italy, two in Spain, one in UK and one in Russia. The German angel of innocence however vehemently denies assisting Macchiarini or doing anything clinical at all in Italy, and to have solely “watched on” in Spain. Jungebluth’s active participation in the other two transplants in Moscow and London is so unlikely it makes no sense, and he had no practice to practice medicine there anyway. So which clinical transplantations are meant then? I offered Jungebluth to publish a counter-letter, a so-called “Gegendarstellung”, and for example explain on my site which operations he was involved in. He refused through his lawyer, stating that his goal is not the correction of facts in my texts, but the total silencing of my reporting about him. This exchange was provided by his lawyer to the court in Berlin, and the court apparently took exactly the same view.

This Berlin court seems to agree that it is necessary to silence me and to end all Macchiarini- or Jungebluth relevant reporting on my site, or in Germany in general.

2verfügung

Jungebluth’s own court statement under oath, where he declares to never have practised medicine in Italy and to have only “watched on” at Macchiarini’s operations on Claudia Castillo and the secret patient DD, is here. I do however have witness evidence that Jungebluth, while based in Florence, referred the patient Castillo in June 2013 to a clinician colleague in Spain for further medical treatment, something mere researchers never do (unlike actual doctors). In a 2011 video available on YouTube (below) Jungebluth tells of the 9 trachea transplant patients which the court now attested him he had absolutely nothing to do with. Macchiarini’s stand-in always says “we” during his talk, when he speaks of the clinical treatments on the 9 patients. Doesn’t that grammatically include him also, by all logic?

 

Examples from above video, Jungebluth’s own words:

Minute 14:10: “we transplanted 9 patients with this method…” meaning cadaveric trachea, described in the unpublished Haag et al manuscript.

Minute 14:25 “we replaced the entire [trachea], or just the main bronchi”

Minute 15:00 “we applied already both methods in the clinic, in the patients”

Minute 15:15 “we had two, three patients with anastomosic malacea in the distal part of the engineered graft […] then we have to decide if they need a biodegradable stent

Minute 15:40 “we had a patient with aortic-bronchial fistula directly after the operation,… but the patient is still fine” That patient in fact is Keziah Shorten, who was actually dying at that time (her story here), but according to this new court injunction Jungebluth never said what he said and if I ever suspect that again I will be sentenced to a huge fine or prison.

Minute 16:10 “we had one patient who had died on the second day post operation […] we do not see a relationship between the graft and the death of this person

Minute 17: 20 “First patient we transplanted in 2008” this was Claudia Castillo, whose operation Jungebluth says never to have been an active part of. Despite knowing better, he claims in his talk: “she is doing very good

Hence, the Berlin court granted Dr. Jungebluth the right say both things simultaneously: that he did assist “in clinical transplantations” on any given number of 9 human patients abroad, for the purpose to present those positively, like in a research paper or as a conference talk in order to promote own career; but also that he is welcome to legally force anyone never to assume he ever practised medicine anywhere abroad when those same trachea transplants are discussed negatively, to protect his career. Anyone trying to reconcile these two opposing world-views is subject to a court injunction and a fine of up to €250,000.  As I am now.

In brief, in German court practice a German doctor must under no circumstances be hindered on having a successful medical career, regardless of what awful patient abuse he was directly or indirectly part of in his very recent past. In Germany, patients’ simply have no right to learn what their doctor is capable of (even as “scientist”, as Jungebluth insists) because that would negatively impact on that doctor’s sacred right to earn money treating those unsuspecting patients.

In fact, exactly because of that both injunctions were seen as necessary by the Berlin court, so that Jungebluth’s medical career will not suffer from my reporting. This will have a further chilling effect on German media, which already now avoids any critical reporting about the Hannover professor Macchiarini and his trachea transplants. German constitution, which theoretically guarantees freedom of opinion and freedom of press, has become fake news in local courts, where doctors’ careers are concerned. Indeed, the issue of constitutional rights usually resolves itself democratically and “amicably” in courts when the party wrongfully accused of libel runs out of money and can’t afford further litigation, as it happened to me before.

I am hence prepared to go up to European Court of Justice if necessary, to end this Kafkaesque farce. But I need your support. Please keep donating.


Dear readers, if you would like to support my ongoing court defence against Jungebluth’s injunction attempts 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. Your generous patronage of my journalism, however small it appears to you, will greatly help me with my legal costs.

€5,00

15 thoughts on “Berlin court grants Jungebluth new injunction against my reporting

  1. Please keep up the good work!!
    As a German myself I know the hassles of the German Law system…. and it can take a long time to resolve such a case. Especially since we have an “interpretation” system, the decision is mainly dependent on the mood of the judge. And yes, for some reason medical doctors are regarded as “Gods” in Germany… Although I know many who could better be described by the term “Devil”…

    Like

  2. https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

    There must be real and effective access to a court (although there are limited exceptions in the case of vexatious litigants, minors, prisoners etc). To be real and effective this may require access to legal aid.
    The applicant must have a real opportunity to present his or her case or challenge the case against them. This will require access to an opponent’s submissions, procedural equality and generally requires access to evidence relied on by the other party and an oral hearing.
    There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has and both parties have the right to legal representation etc.

    Like

    1. Wow, you really think I was sneakily adding papers by any “L Schneider” to my Google Scholar profile which I last looked into years ago? Here a job for you: separate my real papers from those Google scholar auto-added. Go on, clever clogs.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s