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

– 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

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

Without Vaccination 18 Million More Deaths Worldwide? – Really?

People like me are often accused of not taking note of the high-ranking published data on the danger of SARS-CoV2 and the effectiveness of vaccination. I do take note, and I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about it.

A recent publication in Lancet Infectious Diseases [1] estimates that Covid-19 vaccinations have prevented 18 million Covid-19 deaths. This is a steep claim given that 6.4 million deaths involving or caused by Covid-19 have been reported worldwide to date (https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths, accessed Aug. 2nd, 22; see Fig. 1)

Figure 1 – Cumulative number of Covid-19 deaths, https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths, accessed Aug. 2nd, 22  

Read more

Meta-Review: The Backbone of Evidence Based Medicine Is Weak

Only about 6 percent of all interventions used in medicine have sufficiently good data and are effective

Our new meta-review shows: The backbone of Evidence Based Medicine is weak

Regular readers of my texts know that I am very sceptical about the postmodern redemption narrative of modern medicine that proclaims: We live so long and do so well because modern medicine has made such tremendous advances. Therefore, everything that modern pharmacology brings us is good, welcome and worthy of support (and should be funded by the public).

Even the legendary social physician Thomas McKeown from Birmingham pointed out in the 1970s that this widespread popular opinion is most likely wrong and said in the introduction to his still very readable work “The Role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage, or Nemesis?” [1,2]: If he were St. Peter, he would only allow two types of doctors into heaven, namely trauma surgeons and dentists. Because those would be the only ones who really contributed to a reduction of suffering. The real progress and thus the extension of life span and the improvement of quality of life would not be due to medicine, but to socio-political progress, better nutrition, hygiene and living conditions without constant fear of hardship and death.

Well, that was in the 70s. Maybe it’s different today? We did a very large meta-study to answer the question of how good the data is for medical interventions in general. It has now been published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology [3]. I discuss the study and its findings in a little more detail in this blog. For those in a hurry: the data has not changed much. A maximum of 6 percent of all interventions used in medicine, no matter where, are covered by good data.

Only for a limited time (until 08-22-2022) the meta-review is freely accessible at: https://authors.elsevier.com/c/1fIHz3BcJQAobl

Read more

Face Masks Lead to Dangerously High Levels of Carbon Dioxide in Children’s Inhaled Air

The long version of our mask study has been republished

A workshop report and some thoughts on it

Our mask study measured carbon dioxide levels in the inhaled air of 45 children wearing face masks. It found that the inhaled air under children’s face masks contained unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide, about 1.3% to 1.4% by volume, or 13,000 to 14,000 parts per million. Normal outdoor carbon dioxide levels are 400 ppm or 0.04% by volume. The Federal Environment Agency and various protective regulations have determined that 2,000 ppm or 0.2 vol.-% is the upper limit above which damage to health cannot be ruled out. For children, such high values, as we measured after only 3 minutes, are absolutely unacceptable. Especially against the background that children are neither at high risk of corona infections and Sars-CoV2 nor are they important spreaders of infections.

Read more