Letter to the DEGAM
Regarding Public Statements by Dr. Hans-Otto Wagner on COVID-19 and Long COVID
DEGAM
Prof. Dr. med. Eva Hummers, President
eva.hummers@med.uni-goettingen.de
Subject: Public statements by a DEGAM member regarding COVID-19 – Request for a statement
Dear Professor Hummers,
The World Health Network Germany is committed to evidence-based health policy and reliable public health communication. In this context, we are contacting you regarding a matter that, in our view, concerns both the public perception of DEGAM and public trust in science-based medicine.
A member of your professional society, Dr. Hans-Otto Wagner, identifies DEGAM in his X profile. For followers and the general public, this creates an association between his statements and your institution. Within this context, he publishes comments on COVID-19 that represent his personal opinion while deviating from the established body of evidence:
June 3, 2026: “Corona is over …” This statement is incorrect. The RKI’s wastewater surveillance clearly shows that the most recent COVID-19 wave lasted from August 2025 to February 2026. The notification data likewise indicate a continuing substantial disease burden: From epidemiological week 40 of 2025 through epidemiological week 16 of 2026, 114,429 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported to the RKI. Hospitalization was reported for 42,181 of these cases – approximately 37 percent (
https://influenza.rki.de/Wochenberichte/2025_2026/2026-16.pdf).
June 5, 2026: “‘Risk of Long COVID symptoms primarily due to pre-existing health conditions and sociodemographic factors’ speaks in favor of a psychogenic (co-)etiology.” The quotation is taken from the RKI’s February 2026 review:
https://www.rki.de/DE/Aktuelles/Pub...Focus/JHealthMonit_2026_11_02_Long_COVID.html
Screenshots of the posts are attached.
Sociodemographic risk factors describe who is more likely to develop a disease – not the mechanism by which the disease develops. This applies to heart disease and tuberculosis just as it does to Long COVID. No one would therefore conclude that these diseases are psychogenic.
There is now substantial evidence for several biological mechanisms. Among other mechanisms, the RKI identifies viral persistence, dysregulated immune processes, and endothelial dysfunction as possible or evidence-supported mechanisms. Sociodemographic factors may influence the risk of developing the disease and its course through, among other things, differences in exposure, resources, opportunities for recovery, and access to healthcare.
Among other things, this provides a basis for calling for better access to diagnostics and rehabilitation, employment protection, and adjustments to working conditions.
Dr. Wagner’s statements are problematic for two reasons:
First, they create uncertainty among members of the public who expect reliable guidance from medical specialists. Second, they damage the reputation of DEGAM because they are presented with the weight of scientific or professional authority without being supported by the available evidence.
We consider Dr. Hans-Otto Wagner’s public positioning particularly concerning in light of his role as a co-author of the interdisciplinary S1 guideline
Long/Post-COVID, listed in the AWMF Register and valid until May 31, 2026, in which DEGAM was involved. Because of this prominent role, he is perceived by many physicians as well as by affected individuals as an expert authority. His public statements therefore have the potential to significantly influence medical care, perceptions of the disease, and the way affected individuals are treated.
When a guideline author infers a psychogenic (co-)etiology of Long COVID from the existence of sociodemographic risk factors, this creates the impression that personal beliefs are being placed above the current state of research. This is particularly problematic for affected individuals, as such statements can contribute to trivializing their illness, reinforce stigma, and make adequate medical care more difficult.
We expect a scientific professional society and its representatives to be guided by the current state of international evidence. Research published over the past several years on immune dysregulation, viral persistence, endothelial and vascular changes, as well as other objectively measurable pathophysiological findings, documents a wide range of biological alterations in Long COVID. Against this background, the assumption of a psychogenic (co-)etiology derived from sociodemographic risk factors does not appear to be sufficiently scientifically substantiated.
Individuals holding prominent positions in the professional and scientific public sphere bear a particular responsibility for the impact of their communication. We therefore ask DEGAM to consider whether an internal discussion or clarification regarding the principles of scientific communication would be appropriate.
In addition to the review by the Robert Koch Institute, international research findings also support these biological findings. As a further source, we refer to the summary of the PolyBio Spring Symposium 2026. PolyBio is an internationally networked research foundation that specifically supports research into Long COVID and coordinates numerous academic research groups worldwide. The PolyBio Symposium, held regularly in spring and autumn, brings together international research groups working on pathomechanisms, biomarkers, and therapeutic approaches in Long COVID. The work presented there provides insight into current research projects, some of which are still ongoing, and describes a wide range of somatic changes and biological mechanisms under investigation (
https://2026-spring-symposium-polybio.netlify.app/#buggert-gut,
https://polybio.org/2026-spring-symposium/).
We would have liked to send Dr. Wagner a copy of this letter by email, but we were unable to identify an email address for him. We therefore ask you to forward this letter to him.
We ask DEGAM to provide a written statement addressing the points outlined above. In particular, we are interested in how the professional society deals with public statements by its members that conflict with the available scientific evidence, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure the quality of scientific communication, particularly among individuals involved in developing clinical guidelines. We would appreciate receiving your response by October 1, 2026.
Yours sincerely,
WHN Germany