When Lying Is No Longer Possible: Spahn, the RKI Protocols, and the Collapse of the Covid Narrative
Former German Health Minister Jens Spahn confirms that Covid "vaccines" were administered without complete safety or efficacy data
N.B. This is a translation of an article in Spanish by Dra. Natalia Prego MD, published on 18th Dec 2025. The original can be read here: https://substack.com/@doctoranataliaprego/p-181961908
It has been officially admitted that preventing transmission was never the intention, which invalidates the entire basis for Covid passports.
There are moments when a single phrase, uttered late and almost without emphasis, says more than years of propaganda. December 15, 2025, was one of those moments. Before the Bundestag’s Investigative Committee on the Pandemic, Jens Spahn, Federal Minister of Health during the decisive phase of the crisis, stated two things that could no longer be hidden: (i) that the covid “vaccines” were being “tested in the market”; and (ii) that preventing transmission to others was never the goal of the “vaccine’s” development – not even according to World Health Organization guidelines.
In the video below, Spahn makes two contradictory statements: 👇
Expressed this way, the statements might seem technical. In reality, they are biomedical and legal dynamite if accepted as true, and today no one with access to internal documents can deny them. They force a retrospective review of the entire regulatory framework erected in the name of public health.
And they also force us to ask an uncomfortable question that the deep state dislikes: if this was known, why did they act as if it weren’t?
From scientific advice to political obedience
To understand why Spahn’s words could not have been otherwise, we must look beyond the parliamentary hearing. For years, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) presented itself as an independent technical body, a kind of neutral arbiter between science and politics. That image has crumbled.
The full publication of the German Covid crisis team’s protocols, after a long legal battle led by the magazine Multipolar and investigation by journalist Aya Velázquez, revealed something essential. Scientific independence was, both in reality and in practice, restricted. Experts knew when certain public statements were false and scientifically unsustainable. And yet they chose not to contradict them – not because they didn't understand the data, but because they understood the political context perfectly.
Herein lies the first serious rupture: when science stops informing power and begins to protect it, it ceases to fulfil its public health function.
The “pandemic of the unvaccinated” was a conscious construction
This subordination became especially visible in the insistence on talking about a supposed “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” The expression was repeatedly used by high-level political figures. Jens Spahn used it as Federal Minister of Health. Markus Söder used it as Minister-President of Bavaria, the federal state that pushed for the most restrictive measures from the beginning and whose political weight set the country’s hard line. Karl Lauterbach continued in the same vein after assuming the Federal Ministry of Health in December 2021, already under Olaf Scholz’s government.
The RKI protocols show that the experts themselves considered this interpretive framework to be incorrect. They knew that blaming this social group did not reflect epidemiological reality, and that the virus was also spreading among “vaccinated” people. Even so, they remained silent. Furthermore, individuals were not counted as “vaccinated” until 15 days after vaccination—a significant regulatory trap that resulted in counting deceased “vaccinated” individuals as unvaccinated.
This silence was not neutral. It allowed a narrative that divided society between “responsible” and “guilty” citizens, facilitating the acceptance of exceptional measures. The lie was not a mere communicative excess: it was functional.
“Vaccines” without any collective purpose and the regulatory trap
Here the argument takes a decisive turn. If a “vaccine” has not been designed or validated to prevent virus transmission, it cannot serve as a basis for restricting the rights of third parties. However, that is precisely how it was used in regulations like Germany’s 2G and 3G rules.
It is important to explain this clearly. The 3G rule allowed access to certain spaces only to those who were “vaccinated,” had recovered from infection, or had a recent negative diagnostic test. However, the 2G rule eliminated even this last option: only “vaccinated” or recovered individuals could participate in broad areas of social life. Healthy people with negative tests were excluded from restaurants, cultural events, shops, public transport, and, worst of all in most cases, from their own workplaces.
These regulations did not protect others. They classified citizens.
As it is now acknowledged that “vaccination” did not aim to prevent infection, the legal basis for those restrictions vanishes. Without protection against a specific external harm, there is no proportionality. And without proportionality, in a state governed by the rule of law, there is no legitimacy. Put more clearly: they did not protect any child’s grandmother simply because that child was “vaccinated.”
Informed consent under structural pressure
The admission that essential safety and efficacy data were being collected after distribution –that is, after marketing– adds a second layer of gravity. Informed consent is not an administrative formality; it is the maximum bioethical expression of an inalienable fundamental right to personal autonomy.
During the pandemic, millions of citizens accepted “vaccination”, believing these were products with a fully characterized risk profile. At the same time, refusal had tangible consequences: job loss, social exclusion, mobility restrictions, public stigmatization.
When the State makes a medical intervention a condition for exercising fundamental rights, freedom of choice becomes a legal fiction. Even more so if it does this with incomplete data. No one was told: “we don’t know if they will produce medium- or long-term adverse effects, and we barely know about short-term ones.” Consequently, there might have been a signature, but there was no consent in the material sense.
Spain: Article 9.2 of the constitution as a crossed boundary
Extrapolation to the Spanish case is not forced; it is necessary. Article 9.2 of the Spanish Constitution establishes an active obligation for public authorities:
“It is incumbent upon the public authorities to promote conditions so that the freedom and equality of individuals and of the groups to which they belong may be real and effective; to remove the obstacles which prevent or hinder their full enjoyment; and to facilitate the participation of all citizens in political, economic, cultural and social life.”
During the validity of the Covid passport, exactly the opposite occurred. Without a validated QR code, broad segments of the population could not access restaurants, bars, cultural activities, or social spaces. Full integration into economic, cultural, and social life became dependent on an individual health decision, without sufficient scientific basis to justify such a sacrifice.
The constitutional norm was revoked. The obstacle was not removed; it was institutionalized.
Germany: same principle, another formulation
The German legal system does not contain a clause identical to Article 9.2 of the Spanish Constitution, but it does have a set of principles that serve a similar function. The German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) combines the general right to free development of personality (Article 2.1), equality before the law (Article 3), and the principle of the social welfare state (Article 20.1), all under the primacy of human dignity (Article 1).
From this constitutional framework, a clear requirement follows: the State cannot systematically exclude healthy citizens from social life without strict, verifiable and proportionate justification. When it does, it not only restricts freedoms; it betrays its own constitutional foundation.
The exception that said it all
There was, however, an exception that says a lot about the underlying politicization of this issue. In Spain, as in other countries, many restrictions for attending political rallies disappeared. There, almost miraculously, the risk seemed to dissipate. The Covid syndrome, apparently, respected democratic rituals... as long as it was convenient.
The biomedical-legal analysis is serious: when a measure is selectively suspended for political reasons, it ceases to be a health measure. And when it ceases to be a health measure, it becomes a first-order constitutional issue.
Censorship, harms, and memory
While doctors, scientists and lawyers advocating for debate and proportionality were marginalized, the scientific literature accumulated evidence on the collateral damage of restrictions: deterioration of mental health, increased mortality unrelated to the Covid syndrome, educational setbacks, and growing social inequalities.
The censorship imposed on major social media platforms, and the means used by propaganda media, were no mistake. It was the price to pay to sustain a narrative that could not withstand data scrutiny.
When the truth arrives late
Jens Spahn’s statements do not close a chapter; they open one. They confirm that many of the criticisms we made from the beginning were not denialism, as some want to make the public believe – but rather a rational anticipation of the subjugation of science. And they raise an issue that remains unresolved: that of political, legal, and moral responsibility.
Without memory, there is no learning.
If we do not demand accountability, there are no limits.
And without limits, the next emergency would once again justify the unjustifiable.
https://nataliaprego.substack.com/subscribe
REFERENCES
Aknin LB, De Neve JE, Dunn EW, Fancourt DE, Goldberg E, Helliwell JF, Jones SP, Karam E, Layard R, Lyubomirsky S, Rzepa A, Saxena S, Thornton EM, VanderWeele TJ, Whillans AV, Zaki J, Karadag O, Ben Amor Y. Mental Health During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review and Recommendations for Moving Forward. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Jul;17(4):915-936. doi: 10.1177/17456916211029964. Epub 2022 Jan 19. PMID: 35044275; PMCID: PMC9274782. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35044275/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916211029964
Ioannidis JPA. A global perspective of the epidemiology of COVID-19 for a full pandemic cycle. Eur J Clin Invest. December 2020;50(12):e13423. doi: 10.1111/eci.13423. Epub 2020 Oct 25. PMID: 33026101; PMCID: PMC7646031. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33026101/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13423
Vivas MD, Correia T, Bragagnolo L, da Silva IAL, Tureck F, Santos R, Kielmann S, do Carmo D, Avarca C, da Silva F, Paes M, Tofani LFN, Chioro A. Right-restricting measures implemented by Public Health Surveillance services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2025 Jul 17;15(7):e096904. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096904. PMID: 40675643; PMCID: PMC12273073.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40675643/ https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/15/7/e096904.full.pdf
Mazrekaj D, De Witte K. The Impact of School Closures on Learning and Mental Health of Children: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024 Jul;19(4):686-693. doi: 10.1177/17456916231181108. Epub 2023 Jul 10. PMID: 37427676; PMCID: PMC11295395. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11295395/ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916231181108
Reichelt, Julian. “Corona-Experten wussten, dass die Regierung lügt – und schwiegen!” Bild.de, July 23, 2024.
https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/corona-experten-wussten-dass-die-regierung-luegt-und-schwiegen-669fb6cad2fbcb0f92d40f90This journalistic article compiles and summarizes the revelations contained in the internal protocols of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI): demonstrating that scientific experts linked to government advisory bodies were aware that certain public statements, particularly the narrative of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” did not correspond with the available evidence. It highlights the deliberate silence of these experts in the face of politically useful but scientifically incorrect statements, underlining the ethical and political dimension of this omission. It constitutes a relevant source for documenting the disconnect between technical knowledge and institutional communication during the pandemic.
Editorial Team. “‚Unabhängigkeit eingeschränkt‘ – Protokolle bestätigen politische Steuerung der RKI-Fachexpertise.” Apollo News, July 23, 2024.
https://apollo-news.net/unabhaengigkeit-eingeschraenkt-protokolle-bestaetigen-politische-steuerung-der-rki-fachexpertise/The article analyzes the RKI protocols in depth, published after legal proceedings, and concludes that the scientific independence of the institute was limited by political guidelines. It offers concrete examples of how technical assessments were adapted, softened, or simply not communicated, to align with pre-existing government decisions. The article is particularly useful because it supports the argument that public health measures were not always based on science, but rather science was instrumentalized to legitimize prior political decisions.
Nikolaidis, Matthias. “Mehr als 50 % der RKI-Protokolle wurden nachträglich geändert.” Tichyseinblick.de, August 13, 2024.
https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/rki-protokolle-nachtraeglich-aenderung/This analysis focuses on the subsequent modifications to the RKI protocols, noting that a significant proportion of the documents were altered after their original drafting. It examines the implications of these modifications for institutional transparency and public trust, raising the question of whether the changes were legitimate technical corrections or attempts to rewrite the pandemic response after the fact. The information contained in this reference article is key to arguing for the existence of a retrospective reconstruction of the official narrative.
Disclaimer:
This article is not intended to be used in place of individual medical advice. It cannot be used to diagnose illness or access treatment. Individuals may use the materials provided by World Council for Health to complement the care provided by their qualified, trusted health professionals. All information provided by World Council for Health or in connection with its website is offered to promote consideration by individuals and their trained healthcare providers of various evidence-based prevention and treatment options. The information on this website is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for medical advice. Errors and omissions may occur.
 | A guest post by
|
In my You Tube feed yesterday was this short video by Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. It's about him having written a letter to the German health authorities. Apparently some German medics were not followings ze orders and thinking for themselves in Covid. Heaven forbid !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo8VOjbxLE0