Dr. Christina Baum is a German politician representing the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. Born in 1956 in East Germany (Thuringia), she trained as a dentist, earned a doctorate in dental medicine, and worked in the profession alongside her husband until March 2024, when they sold their practice. Between 2016 and 2021, she served as a member of the state parliament (Landtag) of Baden-Württemberg in Stuttgart. Since 2021, she has served as a Member of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag).
Known for her long-standing involvement in the AfD since 2013—including roles in regional leadership and as a former federal executive board member—she is a prominent figure in the party’s health policy discussions and often advocates positions critical of government policies on issues like the COVID-19 response and immigration.
In this wide-ranging interview, Dr. Baum lays out a sweeping critique of Germany’s COVID-era response, describing the party’s latest Bundestag Corona Symposium as an effort to confront lockdowns, rampant civil-liberty violations, and the prosecution of dissenting doctors—an issue she says shocked even international participants such as Robert Malone and Alejandro Diaz.
She argues that mainstream media deliberately ignored the event, while noting that indirect support from the Trump administration, including a formal intervention by US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has helped spotlight the plight of persecuted physicians.
Dr. Baum sharply questions the credibility of Germany’s official pandemic review commission, which she characterizes as performative and hostile to AfD participation, and lays out the party’s proposals for accountability and compensation for victims of COVID policies. She also links rising healthcare costs, violence against medical staff, and declining standards to mass migration, while describing intense personal and institutional backlash she has faced for her positions. Framing these issues as matters of democratic legitimacy and national sovereignty, she presents the AfD’s agenda as a fundamental reorientation of health policy, governance, and Germany’s role in global institutions such as the WHO.
As someone who’s very active in AfD health policy, could you share your assessment of the Corona symposium that took place in the Bundestag at the end of last year? Who attended? What stood out most in the discussion? And was there significant backlash from the mainstream press, establishment-party politicians, and their radical activist foot soldiers because of the event?
The Corona Symposium of the AfD parliamentary group in the Bundestag, which has now taken place for the fourth time, focused on coming to terms with the Corona years—particularly once again the massive restrictions on fundamental rights, but also the question of responsibility for wrong decisions made during that time and the lessons to be learned from them.
We were especially pleased by the greetings and contributions from Robert Malone (USA), Robert Roos (Netherlands), and Dr. Alejandro Diaz (Mexico/USA), which gave the symposium an international dimension.
Great shock and disbelief were triggered by a panel that I initiated and moderated, which addressed the harsh legal persecution of critical doctors. These doctors, acting contrary to the instructions (“recommendations”) of the time and under enormous pressure from politicians, the media, medical administrative bodies, and ultimately also from an agitated public, chose to act in the best interests of their patients. They issued mask or vaccination exemption certificates due to medical complaints—and were subsequently prosecuted for it.
Although all members of the press were invited by the AfD parliamentary group, primarily alternative media outlets—also international ones—attended. The mainstream press ignored the entire event and, accordingly, did not report on it.
What support—if any—has the AfD received from the Trump administration in its efforts to review and correct the wrong decisions made in Germany during the pandemic?
Because we knew that the new U.S. Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recognized and publicly named Germany’s missteps during the Corona period very early on—he was a guest at a large anti-Corona demonstration in Berlin in August 2020—I sought to secure a contribution from him for the symposium, as well as from Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Bhattacharya kindly indicated his willingness to participate, but unfortunately his attendance could not ultimately be realized due to other scheduling commitments.
Particularly noteworthy was a formal letter and a video from Secretary Kennedy, addressed a few weeks ago to Germany’s Minister of Health, Ms. Warken, in which he condemned the persecution of critical German doctors in connection with Corona measures. He called on Ms. Warken to immediately end this persecution.
Indirectly, this was also support for the AfD, because we are the only party that has taken up the cause of these doctors and brought it to public attention. We are demanding rehabilitation and compensation for the injustice committed.
We AfD members of the Health Committee are very interested in a future transatlantic dialogue, as we agree on the central question of the need for a fundamental reorientation of the healthcare system.
During the pandemic, numerous institutions played a role—government officials, mainstream media, medical authorities, courts, pharmaceutical companies, and academia. Given the scale of this institutional entanglement, do you believe real accountability is still possible?
You are right—the entanglements are enormous. Nevertheless, we insist that this period must be fully examined in order to restore social peace and overcome the deep divisions in society.
So many people suffered injustice and harm during this time that reparations are necessary. However, this will only be possible once the AfD assumes governmental responsibility. That could initially happen at the state level before it happens nationwide.
What concrete consequences or corrective measures does the AfD propose for decisions and actions it considers wrong during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Many wrong decisions arose because those politically responsible relied solely on the recommendations of very few advisors, while every critical opinion was immediately discredited, ostracized, and silenced.
Previously respected scientific institutions such as the RKI, the PEI, and the STIKO were pressured from outside, and their staff lacked the backbone to bring findings that conflicted with political interests to the public. This entire development was reinforced by the media, which spread fear and panic among the population stirred up by politics.
For any future medical crises, this means that scientists from all medical fields—and also from social sciences—must be heard, so that a proper assessment of the threat and the proportionality of measures can be made. Experiences from similar past situations must always be taken into account—experiences that were, for example, documented in Germany’s pandemic preparedness plan but were simply ignored.
The scientific institutes mentioned above must be largely independent of political influence and staffed with strong personalities committed only to science and ethical principles, and they must make their findings available to the general public.
The AfD will terminate the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty, thereby depriving public broadcasters—who functioned as mouthpieces of government propaganda—of their revenue from compulsory fees. In the future, we will counter one-sided and uncritical reporting, as well as the spread of hatred and agitation against critics and people who refused vaccination, by withdrawing their guaranteed financial base.
Finally, we want to initiate rehabilitation and compensation for all people affected by Corona-related injustice.
These are just a few of the many important aspects that must be changed.
You are a member of Germany’s Corona Pandemic Commission. Could you explain the commission’s mandate for our readers and share your impressions so far? Do you see it more as a symbolic instrument meant to create the appearance of accountability?
Yes, I am a member of the Bundestag’s Enquete Commission, whose mandate is formulated as follows: “Review of the Corona pandemic and lessons for future pandemic events.”
We AfD members and our experts were marginalized from the very beginning. We were denied a deputy chairmanship that should have gone to us as the largest opposition party. All our motions have so far been rejected by majority vote. We were constantly interrupted and censored during questioning. Our requests to display tables and graphics in public sessions were denied. Quotations from third parties were dismissed as “crude,” and facts, data, and figures we presented were labeled “fake news.”
Yes, I do indeed see this commission as a sham instrument intended to feign accountability to the public—an accountability in which the other parties are not genuinely interested. After all, they are all complicit in one way or another, having not only supported the measures and vaccination mandates but in some cases enforced them with massive force.
Otherwise, a parliamentary inquiry committee would have been established, which has far broader powers than this commission.
You have taken clear positions on several core issues affecting Germany—demographic change, COVID-19 policy, free speech, and state overreach. Could you describe the institutional backlash and pressure from radical activists you have faced as a result?
When I joined the Alternative for Germany (AfD), I was transformed from a respected member of society into an outsider. At times, I even felt as if I had been marked as an “outcast.”
Negative media coverage and constant stigmatization as a right-wing extremist led not only to the loss of patients at my dental practice, but also to the loss of long-standing friendships. To this day, I am insulted, abused, and demeaned. My parliamentary office has been vandalized three times, and someone even placed a cross bearing my date of death in front of my dental practice.
According to some newspaper reports, I am supposedly the most dangerous woman in the AfD because many of my statements appear in the so-called “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” report. I stand by these statements to this day, because I will not allow my freedom of expression—guaranteed by the Basic Law—to be taken away from me.
Freedom of speech is one of the foundational pillars of a democratic society. I once expressed its importance with the following quote:
“The unfreedom of people begins with the loss of freedom of speech.”
Having grown up in the GDR, I experienced a dictatorship. That shaped me, and I will not silently accept a renewed development in that direction.
Because I am firmly convinced that I am doing the right thing—so that my homeland can once again be livable and lovable for future generations—the attacks do not truly reach me. They bounce off. I am not a victim. I am a fighter.
How has mass migration affected the German healthcare system? There has been a documented rise in violence against doctors—particularly female doctors—but what about the system’s overall structure and its ability to absorb the rising costs associated with the sustained and prolonged influx of migrants from the Third World?
Healthcare costs are exploding, and we are facing collapse. A major reason is the mass migration initiated by Angela Merkel in 2015 from all corners of the world, as well as the admission of more than one million Ukrainian refugees. All of them draw benefits from our social systems without ever having paid a single cent into them. No country in the world can sustain that.
We repeatedly hear about attacks on doctors in hospitals and on emergency services. Due to the high number of Muslim immigrants, we are experiencing aggressive behavior from these men toward women—especially women in medical professions, which in Germany are heavily female-dominated.
Another major problem is that many foreigners are now working as “skilled workers” in the healthcare system without possessing the linguistic or medical qualifications that have traditionally been standard in Germany for such responsible professions and must remain so. Complaints are increasing, and this can be life-threatening for patients.
From a societal perspective—especially with regard to healthcare—migration has brought no benefits whatsoever and must therefore be ended as quickly as possible. We must implement a sensible family policy to preserve our own people and ensure the sustainability of our social systems.
In a true democracy, the people would have had to be consulted about such a profound restructuring of society. That never happened—because it was known that the German people would have rejected it. So who is actually deciding for us?
The externally driven mixing of culturally alien peoples and the dissolution of nations is the greatest mistake of our time.
That the United States, under President Trump’s leadership, has recognized this and is now reversing it will, historically speaking, be President Trump’s greatest personal achievement.
When the AfD comes to power, will it withdraw from organizations such as the WHO?
So far, withdrawal from the WHO is not yet anchored in our party platform. However, due to the negative influence this organization exerted during the Corona period, the majority of members now support leaving it.
I therefore assume that we will include withdrawal from the WHO in our next election manifesto.
This interview was conducted by Alexander Junger and originally published by Eagle Eye Explore on February 13th, 2026. It has been edited for clarity and readability, and is republished here at The Gateway Pundit with the kind permission of Eagle Eye Explore.
The post Interview: Lockdowns, Mass Migration, and the Persecution of Doctors—AfD MP Dr. Baum’s Unfiltered Critique of Germany’s Globalist Health Nightmare appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 