Thoughts on Science, Medicine And Sundry Things
This is the private homepage of Prof. Dr. Dr. Harald Walach →.
A complete overview of my publications can be found here →. One focus of content is my small Methodology for Beginners →, which now has 25 chapters.
In my personal blog, I chat about my everyday scientific life and share some thoughts on what I see and experience.
On 4 December 2025, a sigh of relief swept through the press: a large French study had allegedly shown that people who had been vaccinated against Covid-19 were less likely to die from Covid-19, as well as from other illnesses [1]. The data came from the French national health service and covered more than 22 million vaccinated people and almost 6 million unvaccinated people. According to the authors, the vaccinated had a 74 percent reduced risk of dying from Covid-19 and a 25 percent reduced risk of dying from all possible causes (‘all-cause mortality’). The authors had statistically controlled for all possible confounding factors. Everything seemed to be going swimmingly. The mainstream press cheered. Politicians breathed a sigh of relief. Lauterbach, former German Minister for Health, triumphed.
I was skeptical, took a closer look at the publication, and saw what I had suspected: several groups had been excluded from the analysis – those who were vaccinated early on, people in poorer health, and so on. This is permissible, provided it is defined in advance in an analysis protocol. I wrote to the senior author, Prof. Mahmoud Zureik, and asked for the analysis protocol, which, strangely enough, was not mentioned or linked to anywhere. I also asked the obvious question: whether this selection had been defined in advance. I received no reply.
The vaccination debate is gathering momentum everywhere. Our association, MWGFD e. V., has just successfully submitted a petition to the Bundestag and obtained the necessary quorum of 50,000 signatures, meaning the petition will now be forwarded to the Bundestag’s Petitions Committee. The committee will then decide whether it will be brought before the Bundestag. The aim is to abolish the de facto compulsory vaccination imposed by the Measles Protection Act. This Act stipulates that children must present a measles vaccination certificate or a corresponding certificate of medical exemption in order to be admitted to nursery or after-school care.
In practice, this amounts to compulsory vaccination, because, on the one hand, certificates of medical exemption are not easy to obtain – doctors are feeling increasing pressure. On the other hand, such certificates are not always accepted. As a result, parents and children find themselves under pressure as well.
Against this background, our recently published study may be helpful. In this study, we reanalysed data from the German Child Health Survey and asked: Are vaccinated children healthier?
As chairman of the association “Doctors and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy – MWGFD e.V.”, I recently wrote a letter to the head of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Ms Emer Cooke. The letter is published on the MWGFD website in its original English version and in a German translation. I am also making the original version available here as a PDF for download. Ms Cooke claimed that she had no evidence that would cast doubt on the safety of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines. Really? We thought we’d give Ms Cooke a hand with a bit of literature, as she apparently doesn’t have a proper scientific department to do the work. Therefore, a – not exhaustive, but detailed – annotated bibliography is attached as an appendix to the letter.
A few words on the background:
Some reflections on the “Berlin Declaration on Freedom of Expression” This is the long version of a text I wrote for the magazine “Info3”at their invitation. “Thoughts are free, who can guess them? They fly by like nocturnal shadows. No person can know them, no hunter can shoot them with powder and lead: Thoughts are … Read more
In many of my blogs during the coronavirus pandemic, I have repeatedly asked, “Where are the investigative journalists?” “Where is the critical press?” With a few exceptions, I have noticed little critical reporting on official coronavirus policy, the ‘measures’, the state’s desire to force vaccinations on everyone, and related topics. The press has almost always sung from the same hymn sheet as the official statements from the government and its health related agencies. In my interview study, which I have so far only analysed in my coronavirus novel “Verschachtelte Wahrheit”, I also asked several media professionals why this is the case. The answers were complex, but one key element runs through them all:
The mental filter. There may well have been official directives from above at times, telling the editorial staff which way to go. But far more important is the “perceived truth”, what most people see as the “right” thing, what is politically correct, what people need to be taught. It is no longer what is actually the case that counts, but rather that one displays the correct attitude. And the correct stance is that of those perceived as progressive, liberal, left-wing—in short, the majority—and, coincidentally, it is also the stance of those in power. If you fail to toe this majority line, as a normal reporter or editor you run the risk of no longer being taken seriously, of no longer getting assignments, and perhaps even of losing your contract. The precarious world of short-term contracts and freelance work, which can be terminated at any time, has, according to my informants, largely replaced the once more common positions of editors and chief reporters who could not easily be sacked and were therefore steadfast in their views.