Vaccination Critics

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

Scientific publication on the mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis

by

The global, collective mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis has now been clearly outlined and published in a scientific journal

Quinn, G. A., Connolly, R., ÓhAiseadha, C., Hynds, P., Bagus, P., Brown, R. B., . . . Walach, H. (2025). What Lessons can Be Learned from the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic? International Journal of Public Health, 70, 1607727. doi:10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727; https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/international-journal-of-public-health/articles/10.3389/ijph.2025.1607727/full

I have worked with 36 other authors on a detailed policy paper on the international collective mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis, which has now been published and is available to the general public via the link above.

Some of these authors are well known, such as Robert Malone, Harvey Risch, Jessica Rose and Norman Fenton, while others have been less active in the public eye than in academia, such as Gerry Quinn, the lead author and organizer of the consortium, and others. One of the authors, Yaffa Shir-Raz from Haifa, has just published, together with others, a detailed critique of the claim that COVID-19 ‘vaccinations’ have saved millions of lives (Preprint; see also).

What they all have in common is that during the COVID-19 crisis, they argued extensively and with good scientific documentation that one or more aspects of the response to the crisis were not sufficiently scientifically sound or were even harmful. Whether it was masks, mandatory vaccination, social distancing rules, ‘vaccinations’ or other non-pharmaceutical measures (‘lockdown’).

Read more

Paul Ehrlich Institute database on side effects of COVID-19 ‘vaccinations’

by

A workshop report

In my last blog, I discussed the study by the Cologne working group led by Prof. Jan Rybniker. If the findings of immune training were only positive, then we would not be seeing so many serious side effects as a result of these interventions. But we are seeing them, in the side effect database of the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). I had just finished evaluating the first part of the data that the PEI published publicly last summer, when the second part came out. I will therefore have to repeat the evaluation at some point, otherwise it will hardly be of sufficient scientific value. But I will report on my evaluation of the first part here. This is a workshop report; the data has not been published anywhere else.

Read more

modRNA ‘Vaccinations’ Against SARS-CoV2 Alter the Sensitivity of the Immune System:

by

Inflammatory Response Increases – This Could Explain the Number of Side Effects and Secondary Diseases

A new study recently made the rounds in the press: It has now been proven that the SARS-CoV2 mRNA ‘vaccination’ is good for the immune system. This is because it trains the immune system in the long term and enables it to respond much more quickly to all kinds of stimuli. Above all, it creates a lasting memory of this initial inflammatory response, which is very promising. I would like to take a closer look at this study from the working group of Prof. Jan Rybniker from Cologne [1] and combine this analysis in a second blog post with a workshop report of my evaluation of the side effect database of the Paul Ehrlich Institute on these very ‘vaccines.’ First, let’s look at the study.

Read more

People With Covid-19 ‘Vaccination’ Are Sicker

by

Our new representative survey has been published, and other data prove this.

Our new representative survey in Germany has recently been published [1]. It shows that people who have had at least one Covid-19 ‘vaccination’ are sicker, have Covid-19 infections and muscle and joint problems more often than people who have not had a ‘vaccination’. The news is piling up and showing that these interventions are dangerous. The high water mark, above which a safety signal should have been triggered, was crossed long ago. Compared to other vaccinations or interventions that have been withdrawn from the market, this ‘vaccination’ is associated with at least five times as many deaths [2].

Our new representative survey on adverse reactions to vaccination

Our survey was recently published by ‘Medical Research Archives’, the official organ of the European Society of Medicine, of which I am a member. You can download the PDF directly here. As we have done before [3], we used a professional panel provided by the company Debaro GmbH. Approximately 20,000 people participate in such a panel, and whenever a new survey is conducted, they are contacted and the company then collects as many responses as needed to reach a number that can be assumed to be representative based on sampling characteristics such as age, gender and socio-economic status.

Read more