Covid-19

On the Way to a Totalitarian Elite State?

by

A few thoughts on a new essay

I have long thought that we are living in times of upheaval that can only be compared to the great plague epidemics of the 14th century, roughly from 1345 to 1349. At that time, the orderly world of the High Middle Ages collapsed. William of Ockham (Illustration: portrait sketch of William Ockham, probably one of the first portraits of a philosopher, from an Oxford manuscript [1]) dismantled with his critique the edifice of High Scholasticism as it had been built up by Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, or Bonaventure and others (I have presented this in somewhat more detail in my little introductory textbook [2]).

In brief: Thomas Aquinas, in particular, had developed a very rational worldview, based on Aristotle, in which Christian theology was well embedded. From Ockham’s point of view – who was a Franciscan and wanted to promote Franciscan piety – it had a decisive disadvantage: it distanced the soul from a direct contact with God. For in the Thomasian-Aristotelian view there was no direct knowledge of God, only an indirect one, and all that could be learned about the world was mediated through abstractions. The price of the medieval cosmos and its security was thus an insertion of the individual into a system of hierarchies and dependencies, politically as well as philosophically and theologically. It was mainly Franciscan scholars who revolted against this, and among them Ockham was the most profiled, eloquent and influential (a good detailed exposition of all these issues at [3]). For they wanted one thing above all: to secure direct access of the soul to God, conceptually-theologically and practically.

Read more

Rethink – Redirect – New Data On Vaccine Side Effects…

by

…show that “Covid-19 vaccines” and the technology behind them are dangerous

I’ve referred to the study by Rockenfeller and colleagues before. It is now officially published in Royal Society Open Science [1]. It produces a careful estimate of mortality trends in Germany for each age cohort, and from this can calculate what the presumed excess mortality was during the corona years. In the first corona year, 2020, the result is undermortality of about 18,500 people. That’s how many fewer died in the evil Corona year than expected, without vaccination. That’s a finding that gives the lie to all the scaremongering at this time.

Then, as we all know, the “corona vaccinations” came to the “rescue”, which were, after all, supposed to prevent so many people from dying. What happened in 2021 and 2022? In 2021, there was a slight excess mortality of just under 7,000 people, and in 2022, there was an excess mortality of about 41,000 people.

If one looks at a longer period from 2016 to 2020, then one recognizes that in the years before a clear under-mortality is to be registered, which is compensated just in the years 2021/2022. This can also be seen in the cohorts: the excess mortality in 2021/2022 is mainly due to higher mortality among the elderly and compares well with the mortality waves of earlier influenza years.

Read more

The pandemic is over, vigilance must remain

by

– the MWGFD symposium on WHO, some data on vaccine adverse effects and beyond

My colleagues at the MWGFD (Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom and Democracy) held a press conference in Munich yesterday where some specialists talked about the changes to the WHO statutes, about which I already wrote a blog. This press conference is an important document. On the MWGFD site there is a press kit and on Rumble you can listen to the symposion; Youtube has deleted it. You learn a lot of important details, especially from lawyer Kruse, who spoke at the end and backed up the statement with hard documents, that the WHO is indeed planning a dictatorial grip on our health. It may not even be the WHO, but mainly those who promote it. For the promoters, as one learns at this conference, are also the ones who are allowed to send their representatives to the decisive committees and therefore have a say in how health will be defined, regulated, monitored and prescribed in the future. After all, if the regulations pass national parliaments or are ratified by governments, then these regulations and changes become binding and have an international regulatory character.

I noticed at this press conference that the acronym WHO, when turned upside down and mirrored, results in the term “OHM”.

Ohm, as hobbyists from the electronics kit know, is the name for electrical resistance. I thought it was great when I was a kid that you could pack thousands of ohms into a small resistor. Maybe we should put millions of ohms into the resistance to this craziness?

Read more

WHO’s new international health treaty paves the way for health fascism …

by

… if it is accepted

I want to make one thing clear at the outset: Our political system in Germany and Europe is as far away from fascist regimes as the planet Pluto is from Venus. That is, at most far, if you consider the distances in our solar system. In other words, if one applies short-term historical standards, then our present form of government is incomparably much better than what took place between 1933 and 1945 during the Third Reich. However, if one takes ideals as a yardstick for what one would like to see under optimal conditions, there is room for improvement.

In this blog, I mainly want to point out a debate going on in the background that threatens our democracy and freedom. It is the debate to change the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which are currently in the consultation phase. If everything that is proposed there goes through, then global health fascism is just around the corner. I discuss this in the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Because that crisis is basically the blueprint for what is going on right now.

The Ukraine war is masking arguably the greatest threat to our democracy right now – the attempt to install a world health regime

These developments are going on in the background because at the moment the Ukraine war and its consequences are hogging public attention. I think this is dangerous. I can only recommend to all those who do not yet do so to look at the thought pages every now and then or the Multipolar Magazine  by Mr Schreyer, who was the first in Germany to describe the planning games of different actors that preceded the SARS-CoV2 pandemic and others [1]. It is also helpful to consult the page initiated by the MWGFD “New Media Portal“, where all possible alternative and new sources of information are listed.

The worrying phenomenon is that this war is masking other activities that may have much deeper implications for us in the long term. For example, the transformation of the WHO into a global health government with legislative and possibly executive powers. In my view, that would be health fascism. And that is just around the corner if we do not resist it.

I know, harsh words. But I have my reasons. They come from several legal analyses I’ve heard or read about this recently.

Read more

Rejecting critical comments on our child mask study

by

A while ago, I had pointed out that our children’s mask study had been republished in the long version after a new review process. As a reminder: We had found elevated carbon dioxide levels in the order of 13,000 parts per million (ppm) in the children’s inhaled air after 3 minutes; 2,000 ppm is the limit value. Higher levels pose a health risk, according to the Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environment Agency) [1].

This confirms that the original publication in JAMA Pediatrics was wrongly retracted. The motivation for this retraction of the publication was probably political. For if this publication had stood at the time, it should have led to consequences. The masking mandate for children would have had to be lifted and parents would possibly have had good chances in court proceedings. The mask mandates have now been lifted, thank God, and possibly the wheels of justice will now begin to grind.

As was to be expected, there was also opposition to the second publication of the new long version of our study. This is the normal process of scientific discourse, that data that others do not like or are critical of, are critically commented on. In this case, a Japanese group and two Swiss authors of the Schweizerische Unfallversicherung (Swiss Accident Insurance) have voiced criticisms.

We have responded to these criticisms. Our reply is now freely available until 2021-04-21 at this link and thereafter via the Journal’s homepage [2].

Read more