Corona Crisis from 2020

“The coffin must be even bigger than a Heidelberg barrel…”

by

– to fit the many skeletons in the closet of the official Corona narrative:

Our critique of Watson et al’s modelling study is published – Vaccine side effects, unexplained deaths demand clarification

Occasionally I sing the “Dichterliebe”. This is the song cycle that Robert Schumann set to music based on poems by German poet Heinrich Heine. In it, Heine came to terms with his unhappy love. In the last song, No. 16, (here in a very beautiful recording, with Fritz Wunderlich), the poet sings:

The old evil songs,

the dreams evil and bad,
Let us bury them now,
get a big coffin.
Into it I put many a thing,
yet I say not yet what.

The coffin must be even bigger
than a Heidelberg barrel…

Heinrich Heine

I felt reminded of this several times these days, trying to find out if Covid-19 vaccinations have prevented deaths, and seeing the plethora of information slowly oozing out of all corners: Excess mortality, deaths, severe vaccine side effects. Even the world’s vaccination champion Gates now admits that it all didn’t work out as planned after all.

I want to address such questions in this blog. First, I address our new analysis on that model by the Imperial College working group of Watson and others [1]. Our analysis just became available online [2]. And then I discuss some recent information on the issue of side effects and excess mortality despite or because of vaccinations.

Read more

Courts, Governments, Railway Board, Listen Up Everyone:

by

Wearing masks is harmful to health – a new meta-analysis of a total of 37 studies proves this

Just in time for Christmas, the working group led by Kai Kisielinski and Andreas Sönnichsen has made a meta-analysis available on the preprint server Research Square [1] that clearly proves that mask-wearing has harmful health effects. You should take this into account, dear judges, dear members of governments, regulatory authorities, school administrators, responsible persons at the railways, if you continue to make the wearing of masks compulsory. Because you make yourself liable to prosecution for bodily harm. The meta-analysis shows: in all studied parameters, which are physiological indicators of health exposure, the wearing of face masks leads to relatively large, significant and harmful effects.

Read more

Breathing Trouble – Article At Tabletmag

by

“There’s an old story about a guy who jumped into a thorn bush: He wanted to collect berries, but he failed to consider the adverse effects of the plan. Something similar happened with face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic: Masks were promoted, and often mandated, as necessary safeguards for reducing the chance of infection, while … Read more

Gain of Function Research And A Few Thoughts on Christmas

by

Last week I heard a lecture by Prof. Roland Wiesendanger, a physicist at the University of Hamburg. He spoke at a workshop at the University of Trier on “Conscience” organized by Mrs. Henrieke Stahl at the Institute of Slavic Studies, who is also the spokesperson for the group “7 Arguments Against Compulsory Vaccination.”

SARS-CoV-2 and the gain-of-function research

In his presentation, Prof Wiesendanger mentioned his research on the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is available as a research document as a preprint. His work demonstrates that the virus most likely comes from gain-of-function research. The aim of this research is to modify viruses and bacteria and study their altered properties. My interviewees in my current interview study who are knowledgeable about these issues were unanimous in their opinion and made some very firm arguments that I will not list here. One of my last interviewees sits on the US military’s Covid-19 Task Force and thus in a sense represents the externally transportable opinion of the Department of Defence in the USA (because he first has to clarify what he says via his Security Clearance). He casually mentioned “gain-of-function” research as the origin of the virus. Of course, he glossed over it and said that this gain-of-function research was necessary in order to understand how the ever-increasing contact area of humans with animal habitats that have hardly been touched so far can lead to hazards. But that means nothing other than: We want to find out how the viruses in nature, which are not yet known, will behave in interaction with humans, and that is why we are researching them. The plan, according to Prof. Wiesendanger, is obviously to sequence the genome of several hundred thousand such, as yet unknown viruses in the next few years. And that also means: to examine them to see whether and to what extent the viruses can become dangerous. It is easy to imagine that in one case or another this could also lead to research with the headline: “What if…” such a virus would contain this or that other gene from humans or mice.

Read more

Covid-19 Mortality Has Been Overestimated

by

Why official expectations and facts are so different, with fatal consequences for all

One of the contradictions in the whole Corona pandemic is the obviously drastic-high death rate at the beginning in China triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and the comparatively harmless situation here. What happened in China produced panicky predictions in the early modellers. These, in turn, were wrong by orders of magnitude, and none of these drastic predictions came true. Why? The well-behaved schoolboy answer to this question is: Yes, because we took drastic action like lockdowns and so on. This answer is wrong, as I have discussed many times before. So why the contradiction? In this post, I will shed light on these two aspects. That there were drastic events in China is shown by the careful research of Sharry Markson in her book “What really happened in Wuhan”. That there was no extraordinary excess mortality in our country is shown by a new, very careful analysis by Rockenfeller and colleagues from Germany.

Sharry Markson – What really happened in Wuhan

In the beginning, I thought like many colleagues I know: maybe the reports from China were wrong or exaggerated. Since I read Sharry Markson’s book, I disagree [1]. A careful review is not my aim here. But this much can be said: the book is perhaps one of the best journalistic books I have read on the subject. Sharry Markson is an Australian journalist who has talked extensively to Chinese whistleblowers, to US politicians and to intelligence people from different services, and in this book she sets out her findings in an extremely exciting way – a thriller could hardly be more exciting and is more often worse written than this book.

Read more