Drosten’s state protection “of constitutional significance”
An Open Letter by Prof. Dr. Roland Wiesendanger
What Roland Wiesendanger documents in the following letter is not a matter of one man's legal dispute — and Germany is not the only country where it matters. It is a question of whether the rule of law still means what it says. When a government declares the protection of a private individual a matter of “constitutionally significant national interest” and on those grounds refuses to answer a straightforward parliamentary question, something has gone seriously wrong.
These are not developments that should remain confined to specialist circles. The Federal Chancellery's response, which Wiesendanger quotes in full, warrants careful reading.
Drosten’s state protection “of constitutional significance”
Dear Colleagues,
the investigation into the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic received a significant boost in March 2025 when it was revealed that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) had informed the German Federal Government in the initial phase of the pandemic of the high probability (80–95%) that the SARS-CoV-2 virus had originated from a laboratory. This not only contradicted statements by the German Federal Government, which in 2020 and 2021 definitively claimed: “COVID-19 is a zoonosis” (see, e.g.: “New Version of the Strategy for Sustainable Development” of March 10, 2021), but also contradicted the early dismissal of the laboratory origin hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.”
What is far less well known, however, is that in this context, the German Federal Chancellery did not answer critical questions regarding Christian Drosten’s role, citing “constitutionally protected interests,” “which also and in particular include considerations of the national interest.” As evidenced by a letter from the Federal Chancellery (see attached original document in German and a translated version in English), shortly after the existence of the BND report became known, a Member of the German Parliament had asked the important question of to what extent “the Federal Government has knowledge of whether Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten … might have been aware as early as 2020 or before of the Federal Intelligence Service’s (BND) assessment that a laboratory accident in Wuhan is considered the likely origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, when exactly he received this information…?”
This question was significant, particularly in relation to the ongoing Drosten v. Wiesendanger court case, as it was directly linked to one of the two statements by Wiesendanger in his Cicero magazine interview dated February 2, 2022, that remain in dispute. Instead of answering the clearly worded question with “yes” or “no,” the German Federal Chancellery issued a remarkable statement:
“The subject of the question concerns information that has a particularly significant impact on the national interest and therefore cannot be answered even in a classified form. The German Parliament’s constitutionally guaranteed right to ask questions and receive information from the Federal Government is limited by constitutionally protected interests, which include, in particular, considerations of the national interest. With reference to the Federal Government’s protected area of responsibility for international cooperation—which is essential for ensuring effective national and constitutional security—it is therefore unfortunately not possible to provide an answer here….”
This response is particularly noteworthy because the original question did not concern the disclosure of the contents of the BND report (and thus intelligence information), but merely the level of knowledge possessed by an advisor to the German Federal Government during the early stages of the pandemic. Although the concluding sentence of the response stated that “this does not constitute a statement as to whether the … alleged facts are accurate or not,” anyone can see that by failing to answer the question posed, and in particular through the reasoning provided, the German Federal Chancellery is declaring the protection of a private individual to be a matter of “state interests of constitutional significance”, which also and in particular include “considerations of the public good.”
It is natural to ask what specific consequences the Federal Chancellery’s position had—or continues to have—on the legal proceedings in which Christian Drosten was or still is involved:
(1) Why were several criminal complaints filed against Christian Drosten on suspicion of making false statements before state investigative committees, tasked with reviewing the COVID-19 pandemic period, dismissed by the respective prosecuting authorities without even investigating the initial grounds for suspicion?
(2) Why was Christian Drosten allowed, in the context of the Drosten v. Wiesendanger court case, to submit an affidavit to the Hamburg Regional Court, which contained several false statements without this having resulted in any consequences to date?
(3) Why do court rulings in Germany prohibit statements regarding Christian Drosten’s role in the gain-of-function debate that have been confirmed as accurate by internationally renowned virologists?
Not only in Germany, but increasingly abroad as well, there is a well-founded suspicion that, due to the state’s “constitutionally enshrined” protection, political influence is being exerted on the judiciary (prosecutors’ offices, courts) in Germany. The examination of the exact mechanisms involved will have to come increasingly into focus, as they have the potential to undermine the principles of the rule of law in Germany.
Best regards,
Roland Wiesendanger
P.S.: The content of this message (in part or as a whole) is free for distribution to other colleagues, authorities, or institutions.