Courts, Governments, Railway Board, Listen Up Everyone:

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

Gain of Function Research And A Few Thoughts on Christmas

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

The World Economic Forum (WEF) and the “measures” (NPIs) During the Pandemic

Our new study is published

For some time now, I have been conducting expert interviews documenting how various experts from science, the media, politics and civil society assess the pandemic, what factors they see at work, what their views are. Every now and then the idea comes up, that the World Economic Forum (WEF), which Prof. Klaus Schwab set up many years ago, could play a role.

I thought for a while about whether and how this theory could be tested. In the end, I came up with the idea that one could use the number of Young Global Leaders (YGL) that the WEF has trained over the years as a parameter and relate it to the intensity of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPI), popularly and hereafter referred to as “measures”. This is what we, my colleague Johannes Klement and I, then did, at two points in time: at the beginning of the corona crisis, i.e. in March 2020, and at the second peak in the winter of 2020/2021. The study is now published in the peer-reviewed online journal “Cureus” and can be freely downloaded [1]. (Cureus is an interesting journal, by the way; our immunology survey was already published there [2]. It is a journal based in California and started by physicians who proceed without “conflict of interest” and very openly. It is peer-reviewed, usually with 3, at least 2 reviews.)

Read more

Covid-19 Vaccinations Do More Harm Than Good

Now We Have It in Black And White

In July, Mörl, Günther and Rockenfeller published a high-profile paper in the peer-reviewed online journal Frontiers in Medicine [1]. They compared the number of adverse events in the five pivotal trials of the Covid-19 vaccine with the number of adverse events in the control groups, as well as the number of severe Covid-19 cases in both groups, and calculated a harm-benefit ratio. If this is less than 1, then the vaccines do more good than harm. If it is greater than 1, they do more harm than good. Only two studies had a harm-benefit ratio smaller than 1, but very close to 1 (0.9 and 0.6). The authors point out that it would probably be reasonable to expect a harm-benefit ratio much smaller than 0.1, that is, ten more severe courses among control cases than among vaccinated people.

Clearly, this is not the case. In the BioNTech study, the ratio is actually very large at 25. This means that 25 times more serious side effects are registered in the vaccination group than in the control group. In the Moderna study, the ratio of 1.1 is about the same, but also far from favourable. They do not interpret the Sputnik pivotal study because the ratio there is negative, which is hardly credible.

Read more

Why People in Germany Get Vaccinated

Our vaccination motivation study is now published in BMJ Open

On January 6th, 2022, I had referred to the preprint of our study “Why do people consent to receiving SARS-CoV2 vaccinations – A representative survey in Germany” and discussed it in detail there [1].

Now it has been published in British Medical Journal Open (BMJ Open) [2]. The content has not changed from the preprint, so I won’t go into detail about the study again now. Only one additional analysis was added at the request of a reviewer.

Read more