viewEnglish Translations
.
What do we need to ask about the new gene-based treatments?
Dr. Sucharet Bhakdi, former Chair of Microbiology at Mainz University, and Dr. Karina Reiss present new and very alarming facts and figures.
THE VACCINATION CRAZE
This is a pre-publication of a chapter that will be fina-
lized in the forthcoming book «Corona Unmasked« by
Sucharit Bhakdi and Karina Reiss.
Will good things come only to those who wait?
Until now, most of the public has accepted and sup-
ported the development of vaccines without doubt and
hesitation. And rightly so, since vaccinations can save
lives. But no vaccination will ever be perfect and free
of side effects. Useful vaccines must meet two impor-
tant requirements: 1. the vaccine must offer protection
against a serious or even life-threatening disease; 2. its
side effects must be within tolerable and acceptable li-
mits.
On balance, the benefit must be much greater than
the risk. Sounds logical, doesn’t it? And it is true. Who
would get vaccinated against a common cold if this
meant taking an incalculable risk of severe side effects?
Furthermore, not every vaccination has to be useful
for every person. Living in Germany, we do not need a
vaccination against yellow fever, since it does not occur
here.
We already know that COVID-19 puts a clearly de-
fined group of people at risk – namely, those over 70
with serious preexisting conditions. For these people,
vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 might possibly make
sense. Of course, before such vaccinations could begin,
the vaccine‘s efficacy and potential dangers would need
to be examined very carefully. However, the clinical
studies conducted thus far have excluded precisely this
group of patients, so that efficacy and risks remained
unknown before the roll-out of the vaccine.
Does the “killer coronavirus” justify exceptions?
In mid-October 2020, the President of the Robert
Koch-Institute (RKI), Lothar Wieler, told the Phoenix
television station: “We all assume that vaccines will be
approved next year. We don’t know yet exactly how
they will work, how well they will work, what they will
do; but I’m very optimistic that there will be vaccines.”
He was right about everything. The vaccines are here,
and they are being given en masse – yet we don’t know
if they work, how well they work, or what they do.
That is why these vaccines have not been given regular
approval by the EU, but only a “conditional approval”
for emergency use (1). In the next 2 years, it will be re-
viewed whether their benefits outweigh the risks. Every
person who gets vaccinated now is part of this huge ex-
periment. But, of course, without any liability! Because
with vaccinations under emergency rules, the manufac-
turers make no guarantees whatsoever – in case of se-
rious reactions, or even in case of death, they are free
from any liability.
Especially for completely novel, gene-based vacci-
nes such as the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2,
a careful study of the possible risks would be particu-
larly important, because according to the current state
of scientific knowledge, a variety of severe side effects
are conceivable.
It is thus all the more astonishing that meaningful
studies on the efficacy and safety of these novel vacci-
nes do not exist at all – but at the same time, these same
vaccines have already been pre-ordered by European
governments for the population in huge quantities. Nor
were such studies feasible within the short time availa-
ble. Three pharmaceutical companies were at the fore-
front of the mad race for the highly lucrative emergen-
cy approval: AstraZeneca with its DNA vector vaccine
based on an adenovirus, and Biontech/Pfizer as well as
Moderna with their mRNA vaccines. On December 21,
2020, the EU Commission approved the Biontech/Pfi-
zer vaccine, followed shortly thereafter on January 6
by approval of the Moderna vaccine; and on January
29, AstraZeneca received EU approval, too. While ca-
reful clinical testing of a new vaccine was previously
known to take at least 7–10 years, the whole process
has now been shortened to mere months. Could reli-
able data be on the table in such a short time, so that
the public could weigh risk versus benefit? Of course
not. Nevertheless, everything was accepted and bought
sight unseen by the authorities in Europe. In contrast,
the Indian health authorities said NO to the Biontech/
Pfizer vaccine because the safety of the population was
not guaranteed (2).
Do current vaccines protect against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection?
As a matter of fact, a protective effect against severe
and possibly life-threatening COVID-19 disease could
not be shown in monkey models with any of the vacci-
nes (3–5). All of these trials faced the same crucial pro-
blem: infected monkeys never became severely ill, eit-
her with or without vaccination (6). The monkeys can
model infection, but they cannot model the dangerous
form of the disease.
What do the human trials say?
Mainstream media jubilantly spread the press relea-
ses of the companies without ever asking any critical
questions. Thus, from the media we learn that the pro-
tection afforded by the vaccines is simply great – with
Biontech/Pfizer the level of protection is even 95 per-
cent! That sounds great – bring on the vaccination!
But how do these numbers come about, knowing
that healthy people very rarely get life-threatening
COVID-19?
In fact, among the 40,000+ test subjects of the
Biontech/Pfizer study (7), just 170 COVID-19 “cases”
occurred (about 0.4%). Of these, 8 occurred among
the vaccinated (1x severe), whereas 162 in the unvac-
cinated control group. The 8 cases in the first group
equal 5% of the 162 in the second – therefore, 95%
protection!?
Considering this small number of cases overall, the
evidence must be described as plainly ridiculous from
a scientific point of view. Moreover: how did this study
define a “COVID-19 case” in the first place? Aha: sym-
ptoms like cough, cold, hoarseness and a positive RT-
PCR test, which is extremely unreliable, as everyone
knows by now. So, what we have here is a vaccination
that might possibly prevent cough, cold, hoarseness in
0.7% of the vaccinated. For this breathtaking achieve-
ment, hundreds of vaccinated people had to accept se-
vere side effects, some of which led to hospitalization.
The situation is no better for the other vaccine ma-
nufacturers. Accordingly, Professor Peter Doshi, wri-
ting in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine (8),
complains: “None of the studies currently underway
are designed to detect a reduction in severe outcomes
in terms of hospitalization, admission to intensive care
units, or death.”
How great is the benefit of vaccination, especially
for the group most at risk from the infection? No one
knows. Thereby, the justification for the conditional
approval is the demonstrated prevention of serious or
even deadly events. The conditional approvals for all
gene-based vaccines were thus made without any basis
whatsoever.
The human trial continues, and everyone who is
now enthusiastic about being vaccinated is taking part.
Does the vaccine prevent infection and thus the spread of the viruses?
A widely proclaimed goal of vaccination is not only to
prevent COVID-19 disease in the vaccinated persons,
but also to prevent the spread of the virus in the po-
pulation. Already in kindergartens and elementary
schools, children are taught that they could unknowin-
gly kill their grandparents because they carry the vi-
ruses without being sick themselves. To prevent this,
everyone should be vaccinated, including the children.
Does this make sense – can a vaccination prevent an
infection at all?
Let us start with the first question: does it make
sense to try to prevent the spread of viruses that are of
little danger to most people in order to supposedly pro-
tect a risk group?
First, some basics. Did you know that 90% of Ger-
mans carry herpes viruses around without realizing it
(9)? The viruses only become noticeable when the im-
mune system is weakened, for example during other in-
fectious diseases, fever, or stress. Strictly speaking, we
all carry an astonishing number of possible pathogens
onand inside our bodies – yet we are healthy. Coro-
naviruses have also been known to be carried around
by people for decades without causing symptoms. In
the past, these people were called “healthy,” and nobo-
dy paid any attention to them. Today, they are deemed
“asymptomatically infected” and therefore highly dan-
gerous. However, we now know that the same is true
for SARS-CoV-2: people without acute symptoms will
not spread the severe disease COVID-19 in public (10–
12).
When we do develop symptoms, this is a sign that
the viruses have found a chance to become active, and
also that our immune system has entered the battle. If
there is no cough, cold, hoarseness, etc., it means that
our body is keeping the viruses at bay from the start.
The viral load that a person can release into the out-
side world without symptoms is too small to endanger
other people in public. Therefore, the plan to vaccinate
the entire population is a delusional and insane under-
taking.
Let us turn to question 2: could the vaccines pre-
vent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 viruses at all? The RKI
states that this question is completely unresolved so far
(13). To find out, one would have to examine whether
1) vaccinated people can still get an infection and whe-
ther 2) in this case, the amount of virus present is suf-
ficient to infect others.
AstraZeneca alone made headlines with the news
that vaccinated people were significantly less conta-
gious. However, on closer inspection, it is blindingly
obvious that once more no data exist to draw this con-
clusion. The study in question only looked at part 1
of the question: how many more people get an infec-
tion after being vaccinated. How was this checked?
The only criterion was positive RT-PCR tests (14).
Now even the WHO says that the PCR test alone is not
enough to diagnose an infection (15). So what is the the
unsubstantiated claim worth that the spread of infec-
tion was massively reduced by the AstraZeneca vacci-
ne? NOTHING.
Anyone who has the slightest idea about infections
and immune defense also knows that the mechanistic
concept for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination which is pre-
sented to the public is amateurish and naive from the
start. The antibodies induced by the vaccination will
circulate for the most part in the bloodstream. For an
analogy, readers may imagine that they themselves are
such antibodies, sitting together in the living room –
which represents a blood vessel of the lungs. Now the
virus comes to the house – not bothering to ring the
bell, it just grabs the door handle and steps into the
hallway: the lung cell. How could you possibly stop it
from doing so, while sitting in the living room? You
can’t.
Antibodies can basically only help prevent the
further spread of an intruder through the bloodstream.
But that is not the primary protection against an attack
from the air against the lungs. And that is precisely why
there is no truly effective vaccine protection against re-
spiratory infections, including influenza.
If the benefits of vaccinations are more than questionable, what about the risks?
We read in the mainstream media: mRNA vaccines are
not new after all. That is true, but they have NEVER
been used on humans to fight a viral infection. And
humans have never been inoculated with recombinant
viral genes, in the form of either DNA or mRNA.
Accordingly, the vaccinations were under a dark
cloud from the outset. With all three gene-based vac-
cines, disturbing immediate side effects were noted –
but carefully hidden from general awareness: severe
swelling and pain at the injection site, high fever and
chills, severe headache, limb and muscle pain throug-
hout the body, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting. Many vac-
cinated people were so sick that they were unable to
work. In the AstraZeneca study, the side effects were so
bad that the study protocol had to be changed halfway
through: in the later stages, study participants received
high doses of the pain- and fever-relieving drug aceta-
minophen in order to make the vaccination reasonably
tolerable (16). Such changes of protocol in the middle
of a study are actually not permitted at all. Why was an
exception made here?
But that is not all. The AstraZeneca study was inter-
rupted in July and September 2020 because of the oc-
currence in vaccinees of an extremely rare autoimmune
disease, which affects the spinal cord (17). “Transver-
se myelitis” is associated with paralysis and normally
occurs at the very low frequency of approximately 3
per 1 million population, every year. It is surprising,
then, that 2 such cases occurred among a relatively
small number of vaccinated individuals. AstraZeneca
announced days later: calm down people, the first test
person had incipient multiple sclerosis, the second case
was purely an unfortunate coincidence. The show will
go on! And so it did – AstraZeneca continued to forge
ahead. But not only AstraZeneca – so did everyone else.
The Biontech/Pfizer vaccine caused acute facial para-
lysis in 4 participants, and Moderna vaccine in 2, wi-
thout the cause having been clarified (18). The prevai-
ling attitude was, apparently: Why bother with such
details if the race is on to save the world’s population
from ruin, for better or worse ?
Comparable events occurred with competitors Mo-
derna and Biontech/Pfizer. With both vaccines, volun-
teers suffered similarly severe general side effects. This
sentence might be moved up to the discussion of gene-
ral febrile reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Such a variety of immediate side effects has never
been observed with any other vaccination. In America,
when comparing the number of reported side effects of
different vaccines over the 2 last years, the COVID-19
vaccine already comes out on top, although it was ap-
proved only in December 2020 (19).
Is the mRNA vaccine dangerous?
“No” is the answer that is spread everywhere. This is
because 1) the vaccine introduces into our body only
the information for a small part of the virus, for the so-
called spike protein, which means that there is no intact
virus that could propagate, and 2) the vaccine only imi-
tates what Nature, too, would do. Intact viruses also
release their genetic material into our cells when they
attack, turning our cells into virus factories. So, no pro-
blem there at all, right?
Far from it. A natural respiratory infection typically
affects only the respiratory tract itself. If, at worst, cell
death occurs, the damage is local and can be repaired
relatively easily.
With a vaccine, however, the viral genetic informa-
tion is injected into the muscle. Many believe that the
packaged viral genes remain at the site of injection –
that is, within in the muscle. The genes would be taken
up by cells at the site, which is where most “virus fac-
tories” would be created. Side effects such as swelling,
redness and pain at the injection site would be expected
because of this, but they would remain relatively harm-
less and go away after a few days.
What a fatal mistake!
The virus genes in the Moderna and Biontech/Pfi-
zer vaccines are packaged in so-called nanoparticles –
which can be thought of as tiny packages, not made of
paper, but of fat-like substances. This protects the con-
tents and makes it easier for them to be absorbed by the
cells of our body. The packaging itself causes a risk of
severe allergic reactions that is many times higher than
with conventional vaccines (20). It is thus not without
reason that people with allergies are now being war-
ned not to get vaccinated – life-threatening reactions
(anaphylactic shock) could be triggered. In fact, such
dangerous side effects did occur in some vaccination
volunteers, who required emergency treatment. In ad-
dition, nanoparticles can have numerous other harmful
effects because they can interfere with the function of
our blood cells and clotting system (21).
But it gets infinitely worse. It is part of basic medi-
cal knowledge that all soluble substances injected into
muscle tissue enter the bloodstream and are distributed
throughout the body within a very short time. This is
precisely why substances that are supposed to act im-
mediately are injected into the muscles.
It is known that the injected gene packets also enter
the bloodstream (22). Which cell types will take them
up, process them, and then produce the virus protein?
The answer to this is not known with certainty.
We are now witnessing large-scale experiments on hu-
mans. This is absolutely irresponsible, especially since
there was reason for caution from the beginning. The
potential dangers from the “packaging” were already
known. More significantly, however, alarming antibo-
dy-dependent enhancement – in this case, the antibo-
dies do not prevent uptake of the virus into cells, but
rather enhance it – has been observed in animal studies
on SARS and other coronaviruses (23, 24). In the de-
cades-long, yet futile effort to develop vaccines against
SARS or MERS, this enhancement effect was repeated-
ly observed, as one among problem among many others
(25). With this in mind, should not animal studies have
been conducted to clearly rule out this effect for SARS-
CoV-2? Physicians who do not alert those willing to be
vaccinated to the risk that vaccination could make the
disease worse, not better, are in violation of their duty
to inform (26).
And more seriously, could the inoculation of viral
genes trigger other novel immune-related enhancement
effects? Shouldn’t such very elementary things have
been considered and tested beforehand?
As a reminder, lymphocytes have a long-term me-
mory – they remember what the “molecular garbage”
looks like that is produced in Coronavirus infections.
And corona garbage looks pretty much the same no
matter which member of the virus family it is derived
from. All humans have had training rounds with coro-
naviruses, and thus they have lymphocytes that will re-
cognize SARS-CoV-2 garbage. People without in-depth
knowledge might counter that these cross-reactive kil-
ler lymphocytes were detected in only 40–70% of old
blood samples, and they reacted only weakly against
SARS-CoV-2 (27, 28). However, it is known that only a
small proportion of all lymphocytes are in the blood at
any given time. The others are just taking a break and
resting in the lymphoid organs (including the lymph
nodes).
Here, we note an exciting finding: In April 2020,
Swedish researchers reported that they had discovered
something truly remarkable. Activated and combat-
ready T lymphocytes were found in the blood of all
people (100%) infected with SARS-CoV-2, regardless
of the severity of the disease (29).
This finding is a clear, unmistakable warning.
For context: during an initial confrontation of the
immune system with a virus, the lymphocyte response
will be sluggish. Rapid, strong reactions such as that
documented by the Swedish team reveal that forewar-
ned troops are already at the ready and can be mobi-
lized on short notice. They will swarm out of the lym-
phoid organs to fight the enemy. Their main task: ex-
termination of the virus factories – death to the body’s
own cells that produce the virus particles.
And now back to the new reality: the large-scale
experiment on humans. The injected gene packets are
taken up locally in muscle cells, but a large part reaches
first the local lymph nodes and, after passing through
these, the bloodstream. The lymph nodes are where the
immune cell team resides. When the viral gene is taken
up by any cell there, production of the spike protein
gets underway. The corona killer lymphocyte next door
wakes up and springs into action – the brotherly battle
begins! Lymph node swelling. Pain. The lymphocytes
psyche each other up and then emerge from the lymph
nodes to seek out more enemies.
Yes – over there – the muscle cells! There they are!!!
Attack!!! At the injection site redness, swelling, bad
pain.
But now the nightmare.
This is because the substances with small molecu-
les – for example, blood sugar – can easily seep out of
the blood into the tissue, whereas large molecules such
as proteins cannot. For them, the vessel walls are tight
thanks to the lining with a cell layer – the endothelial
cells.
What are the gene packages like – large or small?
Right – compared to blood sugar, they certainly are
large. Therefore, once they enter the bloodstream, they
will remain in the closed network of vascular tubes
just like the blood cells. A small part of them is taken
up by white blood cells. Presumably, however, most of
the virus factories will be established in the endotheli-
al cells, that is, in the innermost cell layer of the blood
vessels themselves. This would happen mainly where
the blood flows slowly – within the smallest and smal-
lest vessels – because the gene packages can be taken up
particularly efficiently by the cells there (30).
The endothelial cells then produce the viral spike
protein and place the waste at the door – on the side
that faces the bloodstream, where killer lymphocytes
are on patrol. This time, the fight is one-sided. The en-
dothelial cells have no defense.
What happens then can only be guessed at. Injury
to the vascular lining usually leads to the formation of
blood clots. This would likely happen in countless ves-
sels in countless places in the body. If it happens in the
placenta, severe damage to the child in the womb could
result.
Shudder.
Is there evidence that something like this is taking
place? Yes, there is talk of rare blood disorders in which
a possible link to vaccination would have to be inves-
tigated (31). Strikingly, there are reports of patients in
whom a sharp drop in blood platelets (thrombocytes)
was observed. This would fit the hypothesis put for-
ward here, because platelets are activated and used up
at the sites of blood clot formation.
Could you check if the assumption is correct? Yes.
Laboratory findings provide immediate information on
whether blood clotting is underway. Autopsies could
clarify whether clots have formed in the small vessels.
And in the meantime, consideration could be given to
whether anticoagulants should be administered to pa-
tients as a preventive measure. The administration of
cortisone preparations to dampen lymphocyte activity
might also be worth considering.
There currently is a continuous stream of reports
on deaths happening worldwide in close temporal con-
nection with the vaccination. Officially it is said, of
course, that the vaccination has nothing to do with
these deaths. It is almost all older people with nu-
merous preexisting conditions, who would have soon
departed this world anyway. If that should be actually
so, probably no thinking and sympathetic humans can
fathom why these poor people still had to be inoculated
with a poorly characterized vaccine such a short time
before their natural deaths.
What could cause death in a frail person hours or
days after vaccination? Several effects are conceivable.
1. stress from the vaccination itself; allergic reac-
tions.
2. autoimmune attack. Lymphocytes are also ope-
rational in old age. In elderly people with preexisting
disease, the attack on the virus factories could be the
straw that breaks the camel’s back.
3. It becomes somewhat more complicated when
a simultaneous infection with the SARS-CoV-2 also
comes into play. In several nursing homes, there have
apparently been COVID-19 outbreaks just in the days
after residents were vaccinated. Funny, funny – up until
that point, there had been hardly any cases in the en-
tire area, and all hygiene measures had been followed.
There were outbreaks even after the second injection
of the vaccine (32,33), a clear and expected indication
that vaccination does not protect against infection.
I think here one must distinguish between pati-
ents with and without preexisting latent infections – it
is conceivable (though unlikely) that those without in-
fection are protected, whereas those with the infection
are killed.
What is more, it seems that particularly the vacci-
nated are dying. Is this perhaps the immune-related
exacerbation of diseases we have reason to fear? Not
caused by antibodies, but by activated killer lympho-
cytes? And couldn’t this happen at any time to anyone
vaccinated – tomorrow, the next day, next week, next
fall? Because lymphocytes have an elephant’s memory.
And they recognize something that looks similar in all
coronaviruses: the molecular garbage that is produced
by the virus-infected cells. That is, the lymphocyte-in-
duced exacerbation of disease progression could argua-
bly occur with any infection with a related virus. In any
“successfully” vaccinated person – young or old – and
at any time in the near or distant future.
Conclusion
Gene-based vaccines received emergency approval at
lightning speed to combat a virus that is no more dan-
gerous than influenza (34). There is now clear evidence
that people can become severely ill and die from these
vaccinations. No real-world benefit of vaccination has
ever been shown. Until reliable and convincing data are
available, this high-risk human experiment must not be
allowed to continue.
References
(1) www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-informati-
on/comirnaty-epar-product-informationde.pdf
(2) https://m.dw.com/en/india-pfizer-withdraws-covid-vac-
cine-application-for-emergency-use/a-56462616
(3) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.11.4
21008v1
(4) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ-
Moa2024671
(5) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586–020–2608-y
(6) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6494/1012.
long
(7) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/
NEJMoa2034577?query=featuredhome
(8) https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
(9) https://www.bmbf.de/de/90-prozent-der-deutschen-tra-
gen-die-herpes-simplex-viren-vom-typ-1-in-sich-4310.
html
(10) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32453686/
(11) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467–020–
19802-w
(12) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591–020–1046–6
(13) https://www.rki.de/DE/Home/homepage_node.html
(14) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=3777268
(15) https://www.who.int/news/item/20–01–2021-who-in-
formation-notice-for-ivd-users-2020–05
(16) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC7445431/
(17) https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Nachrichten/Astra-
Zeneca-stoppt-Corona-Impfstudien-412708.html
(18) https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/Mate-
rialien/Downloads-COVID-19/Aufklaerungsbogen-de.
pdf?_blob=publicationFile
(19) https://wonder.cdc.gov/
(20) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM-
ra2035343
(21) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC6829615/
(22) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC6383180/
(23) https://jvi.asm.org/content/85/20/10582
(24) https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/
jvms/60/1/60149/article
(25) https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/
s12929–020–00695–2
(26) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcp.13795
(27) https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-35331/v1
(28) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
(29) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.017
(30) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/
adma.201906274
(31) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/health/immu-
ne-thrombocytopenia-covid-vaccine-blood.html
(32) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/ge-
impfte-altenheim-bewohner-positiv-auf-corona-varian-
te-getestet,SOLqrXv
(33) https://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article225923129/
Landkreis-Osnabrueck-Trotz-zweiter-Impfung-Aus-
bruch-von-Corona-Variante-in-Altenheim.html
(34) https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/
BLT.20.265892.pdf
.
.
ARTICLE FROM HOME PAGE
German Court acquits man fined for birthday party – says Corona regulation in breach of constitution and can be appealed against
“This is the first time a judge has engaged intensively with the medical facts, economic consequences and effects of specific policies.”
The judge's summing up must be read.
Our unofficial translation:
Weimar Court Ruling
A district judge in Weimar has acquitted a man ordered to pay a fine for breaching the Covid contact ban by celebrating his birthday with at least seven other participants from a total of eight households – six guests too many, according to the Thuringia Covid regulation. The judge’s verdict is damning: the Covid regulation is in breach of the constitution and can be appealed against in material law.
This is the first time a judge has engaged intensively with the medical facts, economic consequences and effects of specific policies.
Part of the Rechtstaat Principle [the principle of the state acting in
accordance with the rule of law, NN] is the imperative of precision in
legislation. Laws cannot simply impose across-the-board regulations,
thereby affording authorities licence to act according to whim, which would amount to arbitrary rule. According to the Federal Infection Protection Act, the “relevant authorities” are to impose “the requisite safety measures”. In normal times, this means that spreaders or persons suspected of spreading an infection may be isolated or contaminated areas closed off. The IPA does not envisage a general ban on contact also extending to healthy people. However – and this is the interpretation made by many administrative courts so far – it may be permissible to go beyond the purview of the IPA in the case of an “unprecedented event” that was so new that the legislator would
have been unable to pass the necessary regulations in advance.
The judge rejects this pretext. As early as 2013, the Bundestag had access to a risk analysis conducted with the participation of the Robert Koch Institute, concerning a pandemic caused by a “SARS-type virus”, which described a scenario of 7.5 million (!) dead in Germany over a period of three years, and discussed anti-epidemic measures during such a pandemic (Bundestag publication 17/12051). The legislator was therefore able, in regard to such an event that was considered at least “conditionally probable” (occurrence probability class C), to study the provisions of the IPA and if necessary adjust them. This political failure, as a result of which Germany went into the pandemic virtually unprepared – without legal instruments governing control of the virus, without stocks of masks, PPE
and medical equipment – cannot now lead to politicians’ simply closing a gap in legislation as they see fit. Particularly given that an epidemic situation, i.e. the basis for the expansion of the routine infection protection provisions, simply does not exist (or no longer exists). The numbers of those infected and showing symptoms were already falling in the spring. The lockdown thus came late and was generally ineffective.
At no time, therefore, has there been a concrete danger of the health service‘s being overwhelmed by a “wave” of COVID-19 patients. As can be seen from the DIVI ICU register newly established on March 17, 2020, an average of at least 40% ICU beds in Germany were free at all times. In Thuringia, 378 beds were registered occupied on April 3, 36 of these with COVID-19 patients. Meanwhile there were 417 (!) beds vacant. On April 16, two days before the issuance of the regulation, 501 beds were registered occupied, 56 with COVID-19 patients, and 528 (!) beds were vacant … The Thuringia registered its highest number of notified COVID-19 patients in spring at 63 (on April 28).
Thus, at no time did the number of COVID-19 patients reach a level that could have justified fears of the healthcare system’s being overwhelmed.
This estimate of the actual dangers from COVID-19 in the spring of 2020 is confirmed by an evaluation of settlement data from 421 clinics belonging to Initiative Qualitätsmedizin, which found that the number of SARI cases (severe acute respiratory infection) treated as in-patients in Germany in the first half of 2020 was 187,174 – lower (!) than the figure for the first half of 2019 (221,841 cases), even though this figure included those SARI cases caused by COVID. The same analysis showed the numbers of ICU and respirator cases lower in the first half of 2020 than in 2019.
Mortality statistics show a similar picture. According to a special
evaluation by the Federal Office of Statistics, 484,429 people died in
Germany in the first half of 2020, compared to 479,415 in the first half of 2019, 501,391 in 2018, 488,147 in 2017 and 461,055 in 2016. 2017 and 2018 thus produced more deaths in the first half of the year than 2020. The terrifying forecasts that exerted a crucial influence on lockdown in the spring were also based on false assessments of the lethality of the virus (infection fatality rate, IFR) and of existing or absent basic immunity to the virus in the population. According to a metastudy by the medical scientist and statistician John Ioannidis (one of the most-cited scientists in the world) that was published in a WHO bulletin in October, the median IFR is 0.27%, corrected to 0.23 %, and thus no higher than in a moderately severe influenza epidemic.
The judge concluded that there were no “unacceptable gaps in protection” that could have justified recourse to across-the-board regulations. These measures therefore “violate human dignity guaranteed inviolable” in Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution. This is a devastating accusation against the Federal Government. It is striking how coldly the Weimar judge concluded this months-long discussion:
“A general ban on contacts is a severe intervention in civic rights. It is among the fundamental liberties of the individual in a free society to determine for himself or herself with whom (on presumption of consent) and under what circumstances he or she will make contact. Free encounter among people for all imaginable purposes is also a fundamental basis for society. The obligation of the state here is categorically to refrain from all intervention that purposefully regulates and limits this. Questions of how many people a citizen may invite to his home or how many people a citizen may meet in a public place to go for a walk, play sports, shop or sit on a park bench are categorically of no legitimate interest to the state.”
In imposing a general ban on contact, the state – albeit with good
intentions – attacks the foundations of society by imposing physical
distance between citizens (‘social distancing’). No one, even in January
2020, could have imagined, in Germany, being prevented by the state on pain of a fine from inviting their parents to their own home without banishing other family members from the house for the time they were there. No one could have imagined being forbidden to sit with three friends on a park bench. Never before in Germany has the state come up with the idea of imposing such measures to counter an epidemic. Even the risk analysis ‘Pandemic caused by SARS-type virus’ (Bundestag publication 17/12051), which described a scenario of 7.5 million dead, does not consider a general ban on contacts (or bans on leaving the home or the general suspension of public life). Apart from the quarantining and segregation of infected individuals, the only anti-epidemic measures it discusses are school closures, the cancellation of mass events and the issue of hygiene recommendations (BT 17/12051, p. 61f).”
Much of the public has now almost come to terms with the new normal. However, as the judge points out, the life that was previously considered ‘normal’ has now been reinterpreted as a crime. “Although it appears that a shift in values has taken place over the months of the Covid crisis, with the consequence that many people find procedures that were formerly considered absolutely exceptional more or less ‘normal’ – which of course also alters perspectives on the constitution – there should be no doubt that by imposing a general ban on contacts, the democratic Rechsstaat [state under the rule of law, NN] has broken what was previously seen as a self-evident taboo.
“It must also be noted – as an aspect worthy of special consideration – that the state, in imposing its general ban on contacts with the aim of protection against infection, treats every citizen as a potential threat to the health of third parties. If every citizen is seen as a threat from which others must be protected, that citizen is also robbed of the possibility of deciding what risks to take – which is a fundamental freedom. A citizen’s choice of visiting a cafe or a bar in the evening and running the risk of a respiratory infection for the sake of social interaction and pleasure in life, or of exercising caution because she has a weakened immune system and therefore prefers to stay at home, is removed under the provisions of a general ban on contacts.” The district judge undertakes meticulous examination of studies showing how ineffective the general ban on contacts is. He weighs the limitations on freedom against the fact that protection has been neglected in care homes, while the less seriously threatened population is no longer allowed into the streets. The judge also considers the collateral damage of the lockdown rulings, which is now becoming ever more massively apparent.
1. Profit setbacks, losses incurred by businesses, traders and freelance professionals as direct consequences of the restrictions imposed on their liberties;
2. Profit setbacks, losses incurred by businesses, traders and freelance professionals as indirect consequences of lockdown measures (e.g. losses to suppliers of directly-affected businesses; losses resulting from the breakdown of supply chains leading, for example, to production stops; losses resulting from travel restrictions);
3. Wage and salary losses from curtailed hours or unemployment
4. Bankruptcies and destruction of livelihood
5. Consequential costs of bankruptcies and destruction of livelihood
The data basis of the analysis comes from an expert opinion by Prof.
Murswiek. During the summer, he criticised the March lockdown for having been, in part, inconsistent with the constitution. General bans on assembly he also considered irreconcilable with the Federal Constitution. Above all, though, he accused the federal government of having made decisions without verifiable bodies of facts and of having failed to present a cost-benefit analysis.
Devastating consequences of Covid policies
“Most of this damage can be ascertained in reasonable detail. Seen as a whole, it is certainly gigantic. An idea of the scale of the damage can be obtained by considering the sums of money poured by the state into the economy as Covid aid. The ‘Corona Protective Shield’ ordered by the government, for example, included EUR 353.3 billion in subsidies and a further EUR 819.7 billion in guarantees – over a trillion Euros in total.
As the federal government itself said, this is the largest aid package in the history of Germany. The federal states are also receiving aid. Because state aid is mostly in the form of credits or credit guarantees, it does not necessarily equate to high losses to the private economy. But private losses will in any case dwarf state compensation or aid paid as lost subsidies.
“Never before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany have economic losses of this order been caused by a government decision. As for the estimation of damage to the private economy and private households, it must be borne in mind that some losses have been or will be compensated by the state. So state activity mitigates the economic damage to private economic subjects. But it does not mitigate the overall damage to the national economy, because it puts a burden on the public purse, and thus ultimately on the taxpayer. These costs must not be swept under the carpet in assessing the negative effects of lockdown.”
The judge lists and provides evidence for the following further
consequences:
1. The increase in domestic violence against women and children.
2. The increase in depression arising from social isolation, fear
psychoses, fear pathologies arising from Covid
3. Anxiety and other psychological disturbances and nervous exhaustion arising from family, personal and professional problems caused by lockdown
4. The increase in suicides, causes including unemployment and insolvency
5. Health impact caused by lack of mobility
6. Cancellation of operations and in-patient treatment because hospital beds are reserved for covid patients
7. Cancellation of operations, in-patient treatments, doctor visits because patients fear catching Covid-19.
The judge’s summing-up packs a punch. In another point, he also refers to the damage being done in many southern countries that are economically dependent on Germany:
“In the light of all this, there can be no doubt that the number of deaths attributable to the measures of lockdown policy will far exceed the number of deaths prevented by lockdown. For this reason alone, the norms I scrutinise today do not meet the requirement of proportionality. Added to this are the direct and indirect limitations on freedom, the gigantic financial damage, the immense damage to health and mentalities. The word ‘disproportionate’ is too pale even to suggest the dimensions of these events. The policy of lockdown, the key component of which is the general ban on contacts, which the state government [of Thuringia] pursued last spring, and again now, is a catastrophic political error with dramatic consequences for virtually all spheres of human life, society, the state and the countries of the global south.”
Quotes:
screnshot
Interviewer asks “can you confirm any of this [media hype]?”
Doctor, shakes head “No”.
