Crumbling Myths

The Ministry of Truth Is on The Horizon And Has A Lot To Do

by

New data on safety issues of Covid-19 “vaccines” and their impurities show this

When I was young and read Orwell’s “1984” at school, what Orwell described was about 14 years in the future. An eternity for a schoolboy. Back then, we were all sure that the “Ministry of Truth” and the social structures described there would only occur under communism. No more could we imagine in 1970 that the Soviet Union could ever end and with it the threat of world communism. That’s how history works: it amazes you, and faster than you think, because things keep happening that you never thought possible.

Now the Ministry of Truth is on the horizon. Unthinkable just 10 years ago. Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed that the new Medienstaatsvertrag (“Federal Media Treaty, a unified regulatory framework agreed upon by the federal states within Germany) already gives the state media authorities the right to criticize and ban published articles. There would be no pre-censorship, but there would be post-censorship. The EU Digital Services Act has been in force since February 17, 2024. It requires operators of digital services, i.e. web platforms, hosting organizations and social media, to independently monitor and remove “hate speech and disinformation”. Who decides what constitutes “hate speech and misinformation”? Good question. In case of doubt, apparently a commission set up by the government.

As always, France is again one step ahead. Macron already had a law against fake news passed in 2018 and recently added to it, as a colleague from France confirmed to me: anyone who advises against medical measures that are scientifically proven and generally recommended will be liable to prosecution and up to three years in prison. The law is apparently intended to combat sectarianism. However, it is easy to see that opposition to medical measures recommended by official government bodies, such as COVID “vaccinations”, are clearly covered. That’s why it’s called the Pfizer law in France.

Read more

Measures And Vaccinations Have Not Prevented Sars-CoV-2 Cases Or Related Deaths…

by

… As New Study Shows

Ladies and gentlemen from the executive and legislative branches: it’s time for you to apologize to the citizens

I’m tired of it, but the political inertia of the executive and legislative branches leaves me no choice but to keep repeating my “ceterum censeo”: The corona crisis was home-made and the “measures”, fondly referred to as “lockdown”, were ineffective, just like the genetic engineering prevention measures, euphemistically referred to as “vaccinations”. Unlike the classic historical “ceterum censeo – furthermore, …” of old Cato, mine is not aimed at the destruction of anything – in Cato’s case it was the destruction of Carthage – but at finally having an open political discourse about what happened. And there are many reasons for this, which I have described in my blogs. Today I am describing a new one:

A very nice study by an international team of authors [1], which analyzed data for the six northern European countries Ireland, England, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, shows:

The “measures”, correctly the “non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs)”, and the “vaccinations” have shown no discernible impact on case numbers, deaths, hospital and intensive care unit occupancy in the data.

Read more

The Naysayers Were Right: Covid-19 “Vaccinations” Never Protected Against Transmission

by

They are associated with increased mortality and have many side effects – therefore they should be banned now

Some unpleasant news about the Covid-19 vaccination campaign

A few newspapers reported at the end of November (“The Berliner Zeitung“; “Die Weltwoche“) and otherwise mainly internet portals (“Die Achse des Guten“; “tkp“) about a letter signed by the head of the European Medicine Agency (EMA), Emer Cooke, in response to a question from some Members of the European Parliament (here the question from Oct. 12, 2023).

The essence of the EMA’s letter in response to the parliamentarians’ question is a surprise only to those who have not yet informed themselves well enough. Ms. Cooke says bluntly: The Covid-19 vaccines had not been tested from the outset to prevent infection transmission and did not do so. Incidentally, this was stated in the Comirnaty package insert. Even more brazen is the response from Stella Kyriakides on behalf of the Commission: The EMA had already reported this in 2020. Subtext: So why the stupid question and all the excitement?

Where did the question come from? Didn’t Ms. von der Leyen claim that we are not only protecting ourselves, but also “our loved ones”, i.e. others? Subtext: because vaccinated people don’t get sick and can’t pass on an infection. This is wrong and Ms. von der Leyen, in particular, should have known this in 2020. How did Spahn, Lauterbach, Merkel, Scholz, the whole squad of Berlin high politics and the German media world trumpet this? “Anyone who doesn’t get vaccinated is a dangerous person, antisocial, should be locked up, must be forced’’, etc. Yes, it’s easy to forget such embarrassments. But you shouldn’t. Because now, a long three years later, it’s official. Politicians knew that the “vaccines” did not protect against transmission, and claimed the opposite. In my view, that is the definition of a lie. And collectively. Also in the German media landscape. It is therefore consistent that the leading media are apparently unwilling to discuss this fact. The fact that the EKD is asleep – see my last blog – comes as no surprise to anyone. But the otherwise so alert sleuths from SZ, FAZ, BILD and co? Well, they just don’t like to admit that they’ve made mistakes, I know.

But now that another wave of infections seems to be rolling in, the talk will get louder again: Vaccination helps, vaccination is good for your health, vaccination helps others above all, if not me, then grandpa, and maybe vaccination will help the poor animals too …

Read more

“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

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