Tausende Geschädigte: Die Corona-Impfung vor Gericht | Tobias Ulbrich

Summary

Lawyer Tobias Ulbrich describes his work representing people who say they were harmed by COVID-19 vaccines. He says his involvement began after deaths and myocarditis cases affected people close to his family and an excavator driver working at his home.

The discussion is strongly critical of pandemic policy and public institutions. The medical and legal allegations below are presented as Ulbrich’s claims, not as independently verified findings.

Ulbrich divides the legal efforts into three areas:

• Civil claims against vaccine manufacturers: Ulbrich says more than 5,500 people contacted his firm and that its database suggested injuries were associated with particular vaccine batches. He cites studies from Denmark, the Czech Republic, and the United States as supporting the possibility of batch-related differences. According to him, many early German cases were dismissed on the basis of a presumed positive benefit-risk balance. He says a Federal Court of Justice ruling on 9 March 2026 rejected that approach where the underlying evidence cannot be examined and expert evidence is not obtained. He describes subsequent higher-court decisions as a partial change in direction, while saying other courts continue to impose demanding evidentiary requirements. He also discusses a binding Aurich court ruling requiring BioNTech to provide information and says his side has sought enforcement.

• Social-law claims for compensation: Ulbrich says these proceedings use a lower standard for establishing causation, but that claims are still often rejected. He says expert assessments may be made by specialists he considers insufficiently qualified in immunology. He reports some successful awards for recognized health impairments, while estimating that about 94% of roughly 10,000 applications have been rejected. He says thousands of disability-benefit applications remain unresolved, in some cases for years.

• Criminal complaints and investigations: Drawing a comparison with the thalidomide case, Ulbrich argues that criminal proceedings may create pressure for a broader compensation solution. He discusses allegations about manufacturing conditions at BioNTech’s Marburg plant, possible contamination of certain batches, and the handling of complaints by prosecutors in Mainz and elsewhere. He cites three batches and reports that the Paul Ehrlich Institute’s suspected-adverse-event data showed a high number of reports associated with them. He also alleges that data were omitted or altered; the subtitles do not establish these claims as court findings. He says some investigations are ongoing, while others have been discontinued or referred to other authorities.

The conversation also criticizes public messaging used to encourage vaccination. Ulbrich argues that claims linking vaccination with protection against infection and transmission misled the public and intensified pressure on people who remained unvaccinated. He describes resulting social conflict and says the state has failed to respond adequately to people reporting injuries.

Ulbrich further alleges that public funds were used to support manufacturers’ legal representation and that legal-expenses insurers, political decisions, and media coverage have made it harder for injured people and their lawyers to pursue cases. He raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest and criticizes the Paul Ehrlich Institute’s multiple responsibilities, proposing that its functions be separated into independent bodies. Host Benjamin Mudlack broadly agrees with the criticism and emphasizes the need for further scrutiny.

Presenters and contributors: Benjamin Mudlack (host); Tobias Ulbrich (guest).