Research

Only 14% of those with a positive PCR coronavirus test actually infected

by

Our new study proves that only 14% of those who suffered restrictions as ‘infected’ individuals with a positive PCR coronavirus test were actually infected.

During the unfortunate coronavirus years, we all had to endure nasal or throat swabs followed by PCR tests, sometimes on a daily basis, combined with anxious waiting: Is it positive? Will I now be unable to travel, go to work, university, restaurants or meeting places? Even the German Infection Protection Act stipulates this testing procedure. In our new study [1], recently published in Frontiers in Epidemiology, we show that only 14% of those who tested positive with a PCR test and therefore often had to experience some form of restriction actually had a manifest infection.

This can be deduced from a comparison of data collected with a PCR test and an IgG antibody test. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR), invented by Kary Mullis [2] in the 1980s, for which he received the Nobel Prize, uses tiny snippets of any gene sequence and searches for the matching counterpart in a sample. And if it finds even a single such counterpart, it amplifies it as often as desired and as long as the process is kept running. This works through cycles of repetitions. According to laboratory wisdom, I have been told by specialists, this is normally not done more than 20 times, because otherwise the risk of a false positive result becomes too great. One would then claim that a certain gene sequence was found in someone or in a sample, even though it is not actually there. This so-called cycle threshold, abbreviated CT, is therefore an essential part of a PCR test. This is because it provides information about how often the original sample must be amplified in order to find something. Can anyone remember a CT value being specified on the PCR test that was given to us? No? That’s right. Because it was almost never specified. However, we know from various studies that German laboratories worked thoroughly with CT values of 30 to 35, sometimes even up to 40 (evidence in our publication). Therefore, the risk of false positive results was very high.

Read more

Covid-19 ‘vaccinations’ are associated with higher psychiatric morbidity

by

A large Korean cohort study has just been published that included half of the population of Seoul. The data is based on the Korean health database [1]. The study participants, more than 2 million people in total, were randomly selected from all residents of Seoul and followed prospectively, i.e. into the future, to see if they received Covid-19 ‘vaccinations’ and, if so, which ones, and if they developed psychiatric illnesses.

308,354 of them were not ‘vaccinated’, and thus provided a good database for comparison. The study showed that depression, anxiety disorders, including stress disorders and somatoform disorders, as well as sleep disorders and sexual disorders were more common in those who had been vaccinated, while schizophrenia and bipolar disorders were more common in those who had not been vaccinated. Adverse effects were generally more common in people who had been ‘vaccinated’ with different preparations mixed together. This can be seen in the figure below, which shows the incidence rates for anxiety disorders. The green bands indicate the incidence rates for ‘unvaccinated’ people, the blue bands for ‘vaccinated’ people with mRNA ‘vaccines’; the red bands for vector DNA ‘vaccines’ (e.g. AstraZeneca). The dark blue line is that for people with different ‘vaccines’. The effects were recorded for up to three months after the ‘vaccinations’ and only if at least two ‘vaccinations’ had been administered.

Read more

Publication Policy through “Retractions”

by

Our Experience with Two Own “Retractions” and Thoughts Thereon are Now Published

During the COVID period, I co-authored two papers with colleagues, both of which were published in succession and retracted in close sequence; known as “retractions” in scientific parlance. One was a risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines,” and the other was our study on children’s masks. Both have been republished [1-4].

Read more

Even Crazier than Homeopathy – But Apparently It Works

by

Peter Chappell’s AIDS Remedy PC1

Our field study in Africa has been published

Background story

I’ve always found off-the-wall therapies interesting because, historically, scientific innovations and new findings have very often come from the fringes of the mainstream. Not always, but very often. That’s why I became interested in homeopathy when friends and colleagues dragged me to Dr Köhler’s legendary homeopathy lectures during my student days. At the time I thought: This is so crazy, if it’s true, then it’s revolutionary. As a result, I became scientifically involved with homeopathy. I did some drug trials and clinical research and then, after about 10 years of intensive research, 3 books [1-3], a series of peer-reviewed papers [4-10], extensive work on placebo effects [11-15], I realized: Yes, something is happening that is beyond random fluctuations, but that we do not understand in any way and certainly cannot explain with the conventional causal models of science [16]. I have tried to make this tangible with the scientific models currently available, but I still don’t know whether that actually leads anywhere [17].

While my hot homeopathic research period was cooling down in the early 2000s, I was approached by Harry van der Zee, a Dutch homeopathic doctor. He wanted to replicate our headache study, but better than us. That study is one of the studies in the homeopathic database that found by far the worst effect for homeopathy [7, 10]. I invited Harry round. We spent a few days together and cooked up the supposedly unbeatable design. Harry went home, did a pilot study, which turned out to be what I predicted, not what he expected. And because there was no funding, nothing came of it in the end. 

Read more

Myocarditis is more common after Covid-19 “vaccinations” than after natural infections

by

Our commentary on the study by Buergin et al. is now published Sometimes you have to take detours to reach your destination. Ours now led to the Egyptian Heart Journal, which has just published our commentary on the study by Buergin and colleagues [1, 2]. I had previously complimented the study by Buergin and colleagues … Read more