‘In crises, politicians just want to be told what to do’, Says Alena Buyx

Former German Ethics Councillor and professor of medical ethics--once pushed the poison/death juice über alles--reflects on her profession

Some legacy media pieces are like car accidents (involving railroad crossings): it’s impossible not to look at them. Today’s piece owes a great deal to that factoid, for it provides an insight into the sick and twisted mind of one of Germany’s foremost Covid experts™, Alena Buyx.

From her Wikipedia bio:

Buyx studied medicine, philosophy and sociology at the University of Münster, the University of York and the University College London from 1997, and earned a PhD.

Her faculty profile at the Technical University of Munich holds a few more snippets of insight: she once studied medicine, but her professorship’s denomination is ‘ethics and health technologies’, which is fair enough; her Habilitation, however, is in the field of ‘ethics, history, and the theory of medicine’ (which might be something she kinda made up as that kind of specialist denomination is something applicants for the Venia legendi typically write into their cover letter).

Be that as it may, during the Covid Mania, Alena Buyx was the pretty face (not my type) of the German Ethics Council (Ethikrat, 2020-24), and in that capacity, she was a perennial talk show guest. She’s a diehard needle pusher (there’s no jab she dislikes), there are so many legacy media pieces where she fully embraces this cult, and, on top of it, according to her own words (appearing next to Christian Drosten, no less), she took ‘four jabs’ and ‘had Covid thrice’ (X/Twitter link; even if you don’t understand a word, it’s 47 seconds only—and just look at her facial expression and body language).

And these days, prof. Buyx is no longer chair of the ethics council, but she’s still willing (eager) to talk to any media outlet, including Austria’s Der Standard.

Translation of the below content is mine, with emphases and [snark] added.

For the full experience, see how often you must hold your stomach content down while reading.

---

Medical Ethicist: ‘In crises, politicians just want to be told what to do’

According to Alena Buyx, the WHO Pandemic Treaty is a step forward [of course]. She is ambivalent about prenatal diagnostics and euthanasia and warns of negative consequences

An interview by Irene Brickner, Der Standard, 4 May 2025 [source; archived]

In Austria, the process of coming to terms [orig. Aufarbeitung] with the coronavirus pandemic is more advanced than in her home country of Germany, says Alena Buyx at the start of the video interview. The study by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Nach Corona: Reflexionen für zukünftige Krisen [After Corona: Reflections for future crises] (Vienna, 2023), which she accompanied as a member of the scientific advisory board, has made some progress [sure (not); here’s my ‘somewhat’ contrarian take]. However, she is quick to emphasise that she also wants to talk about other topics [of course, lest one gets bogged down explaining her pro-mandatory vaccination (‘Is there a moral imperative to get vaccinated? Yes!’) stance of yesteryear], such as euthanasia and the opportunities and risks of prenatal diagnostics and robotics in care.

Der Standard: The WHO recently announced the agreement on an international pandemic treaty—surprising for some, as a year ago it looked very much like failure [this was achieved™ by resorting to subterfuge and other shenanigans, as James Roguski has tirelessly documented]. Are you pleased that a compromise has been reached?

Buyx: I’m rather relieved. The pandemic treaty is not perfect, but at least we have succeeded in creating an international set of rules after many years of tough negotiations [like, you know, the UN—how’s that working out these days?]. This is also in the interests of all those involved, as it places demands on the healthcare systems of all participating countries. They are committed to monitoring whether they are exposed to hazards that may spread. In view of the high risk of zoonoses, i.e., pathogens jumping from the animal kingdom to humans, this makes a lot of sense.

Der Standard: The pandemic treaty is due to be adopted at the WHO annual meeting in Switzerland in May and will come into force once 60 countries have ratified it. Which of its key points are particularly important?

Buyx: In addition to prevention [here’s a quick question from among the rabble: how does one ‘prevent’ the ‘high risk of zoonoses’? I mean, wouldn’t it be a good starting point to stop selling or eating bush meat in, say, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia?], it is international cooperation, so that DNA sequences of pathogens are shared very quickly if the worst comes to the worst. During Corona, we have seen how important this is, for example in developing vaccines [sure; what about the other goodies of the Covid Mania?]. It is also good that countries are sharing resources to combat the pandemic—masks, protective clothing and so on—and that healthcare staff should be prioritised when it comes to distribution. Finally, the planned technology transfer also makes sense from a medical ethics perspective. I’m very curious about that: will companies really share their expertise [meant is: proprietary intellectual property; here’s my 2 cents on that—it depends on the price countries are willing (sic) to pay, the CEOs’ humanity (lol), and, of course, long-term payments by the taxpayer to offset ‘lost future revenues’—in short: most likely not]?

Der Standard: That sounds as if the WHO has considered almost everything. Have they?

Buyx: Well, yes. It would also be good to have a kind of global platform [a UN approval stamp for ‘the Science™’ is included in that package, I surmise]—a repository where all the work of the expert councils and the scientific community is brought together for learning purposes. In other words, a digital tool that is programmed, filled, and indexed. This is feasible with today’s algorithms. It’s not rocket science—and the WHO would be the right forum for it [looking at the Covid shitshow, the question ‘what could go wrong’ by institutionalisation of what is ‘true™’ and what is ‘false™’ knowledge is a thought that never enters prof. Buyx’ head].

Der Standard: The pandemic treaty is a point of attack for the AfD, the FPÖ, and other anti-WHO actors [myself included, and I’m proud to be one]. They continue to fuel fears that the World Health Organisation could soon decide on lockdowns and compulsory vaccinations? How do you respond to such arguments? [oh, so the criticism is valid? To me, this is the most stunning admission in these regards that I’ve yet come across]

Buyx: That they are wrong and have always been wrong! WHO cannot impose measures in individual countries or regions, there is no question of that. Voting against the pandemic treaty because of such fake news is absurd [note the non-answer, which, ironically, didn’t escape the journo™]

Der Standard: Nevertheless, such conspiracy theories continue to flourish due to the loss of trust in science, politics, and the media [speak for yourself] caused by the pandemic. How do we get out of this?

Buyx: There is no perfect solution. The British approach to policy advice, for example, would be helpful [would that include, say, Matt Hancock’s less-than-experty text messages or Prof. Ferguson’s delicate indiscretions (‘lockdown modeler resigns in disgrace’) during the lockdown for the rabble? Here’s bonus reference: Matt Hancock on Prof. Ferguson’s sex life; I’m sure doing this the British gov’t way helps a lot in the next pandemic]. In the UK, there is a committee for crisis situations called SAGE: a kind of scientific reserve that works ad hoc and transparently [in Germany, there is the Ethics Council, or Ethikrat, which is kinda the same]. Various courses of action and scenarios are quickly worked through and recommendations are then formulated [like, Neil Ferguson’s models have ever been right on the spot, as even The Spectator enquires (more about that below)]. Politicians then have to deal with these. This is important because politicians only really want one thing in crisis situations: to be told what to do. However, this leaves sufficient distance between counselling and politics [how does responsibility vs. the voters, parliament, and the judiciary work? I mean, isn’t that an ethics quandary? Politicos™ claim they listened to experts™, the latter emphasise their advisor™ role, hence no-one is ultimately there to bear responsibility? Sounds like total horseshit to me].

Der Standard: Why has the coronavirus pandemic been politicised to such an extent?

Buyx: Because it was a real talking point [see, no mention shall be made of all the modelling shitshows vs. reality and the ongoing lack of reliable data on virtually all the measures, in particular the poison/death juices]. Parties like the AfD—and the FPÖ in Austria [note that this association isn’t accidental as the German domestic intel agency just announced, without publishing their evidence (they apparently gave it to select legacy media outlets), that the AfD is ‘assuredly right-wing extremist’ (orig. gesichert rechtsextremistisch); what prof. Buyx does here is: meddling in the internal/domestic affairs of another country, which is, of course, reprehensible for Marco Rubio or Elon Musk to do, but all-o.k. if ze Germans do it]—were initially unclear about the lockdowns. Then they realised that it was possible to emotionalise the issue against the state [as an aside, the FPÖ is still insisting on doing a proper Covid review and still going strong on the whole let’s work through this shitshow thing: I’m personally amazed about that kind of sustained consistency, but that’s besides the point; by contrast, the topic was notably absent from the AfD’s election campaign]. Coronavirus was also the first pandemic in human history to be accompanied by a massive digital infodemic [it’s a bit rich coming from someone who was all-in on the gov’t side]. Fake news were spread around the world from Russia, for example, in order to divide and destabilise liberal democracies [no good has ever come out of Russia, apparently, and even though prof. Buyx was talking about domestic politics, why not throw Russia into the mix, too?].

Der Standard: You also warn against the AfD in connection with questions of prenatal diagnostics and euthanasia, which take up a lot of space in your new book Leben und Sterben: Die großen Fragen ethisch entscheiden [the title translated reads like ‘Life and Death: Deciding the Big Questions Ethically’]. Why?

Buyx: Prenatal diagnostics is sometimes associated with social risks [no need to worry about the ‘small but real risk of losing the pregnancy (miscarriage)’ due to such tests] that can lead to discussions about the so-called value of life—which can be politically exploited by such parties. In Denmark, with the widespread introduction of the so-called prenatal test, no child with Down's syndrome has been born in a year [prof. Buyx is peddling fake news: according to the Danish healthcare service’s own pamphlet, there are two ultrasounds and one blood test incl.; everything, incl. ‘fetal testing for abnormalities’ is neither recommended nor standard practice]. The parents or women who deliberately terminated the pregnancy are therefore not to be blamed [Denmark also offers ‘free abortions’ during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy: apparently, prof. Buyx has no issues with terminating life]. They wanted to give birth to a healthy child or could not bear the burden of having a child with Down’s syndrome. But the tragedy of such individual decisions is that they can become a social trend [rather: contagion; also, note, once more, that abortion in such cases is o.k. for the ethics professor].

Der Standard: Prenatal diagnosis also prevents a lot of suffering. Where exactly is the risk? [that sounded a bit odd even to Ms. Brickner, hence the follow-up question]

Buyx: That we become a society that rejects people with certain illnesses or disabilities because they can be recognised before birth and are therefore preventable [no need to consider the ‘small but real risk of losing the pregnancy (miscarriage)’ due to such tests; as a follow-up: what’s the difference to 20th-century euthanasia? If’s obvious the prenatal quality, as opposed to the former’s post-natal notions]. That a creeping trend emerges of not wanting, not supporting and rejecting such people in society, as is the case in many right-wing extremist ideologies. That must not be allowed to happen.

Der Standard: Your book also deals extensively with questions of euthanasia. In Germany, as in Austria, only passive measures are permitted; for example, a person who is willing to die must take a life-ending medication themselves. You think that’s right. Why?

Buyx: So-called active euthanasia is ethically justifiable [what might not be so, according to the ethicist?], but there are important reasons against introducing it: The medical profession in Germany, for example, is very divided on this issue. More importantly, in countries with active euthanasia, such as the Netherlands, the figures have been fairly stable for many years—but there has been an upward trend in recent years. It is unclear whether this is just a kind of uptick or whether it expresses a normalisation of euthanasia, the latter would be problematic. It would be bad if old or sick people felt pressure to request euthanasia [sure, like in Canada, isn’t it?] So we first need to investigate the causes [and thus the grift continues].

Der Standard: But the fact is that there are more and more old and sick people in our European societies and it is a great challenge to care for them all [so, why not offer™ them all a way out?] You have also conducted research into care robots and AI applications. Can these help us?

Buyx: The ethical rule of thumb here is that artificial intelligence applications—robotics—must expand human options for action and development and not reduce them. AI must not replace people. There are studies from Japan that show that most care robots have so far led to more effort than they are useful. We should therefore create algorithms that take care of all the annoying paperwork [talk about one innovation that creates more problems…]. That would make things a lot easier; nurses and doctors currently spend an average of 40% of their working time in front of computers.

---

About the interviewee: Alena Buyx (47) is a German medical ethicist and university professor. She was Chair of the German Ethics Council from 2020 to April 2024. In this role, she became known to the general public through media appearances during the Covid-19 pandemic and now frequently comments on other ethical issues. In March, Buyx published the book Leben und Sterben: Die große Fragen ethisch entscheiden.

---

Bottom Lines

We haven’t reached the bottom of the intellectual barrel yet, but I submit that prof. Buyx is quite close to it.

As to appearances, well, what else is there to note but Alena Buyx’ faculty profile (which indicates that the answer to ‘what would Buffy the Vampire Slayer look like/do once beyond her adolescence’ is…)

To be fair, she’s not nearly as utterly wrong and despicable as her colleague Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, yet I shall close this posting by re-posting a few pertinent questions that John Fund wrote in The Spectator in early May 2020 (!!!):

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March [2020], Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?

Nuff said, I submit. Alena Buyx, please shut up and go away. Forever.