SARS-CoV2

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

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

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

The RKI Files Show: The Government Has Lied to Us

by

Our analysis of the infection data proves it: The RKI has lied to the population. 

We urgently need an honest and competent reappraisal

 “RKI files” is what I call the RKI documents released by Mr Schreyer and his multipolar magazine. These are mainly minutes of meetings about the events that led to the declaration of a national state of emergency with all its consequences: curfews, restaurant, theatre, sports club and other closures, popularly known as “measures”. They are available in their entirety and have already been commented on in detail by Multipolarmagazin and others (RKI Protocols 1 and RKI Protocols 2). I would like to point out a few important details and, in the second part of this article, discuss a study that I helped with a little and which is now available on the Zenodo preprint server [1]. It shows that Just 13.5% of all people who have ever tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 were actually infected or had an immune response, detectable by IgG antibodies. The RKI knew this very early on, or could have known it. So they could have stopped the testing mania and the measures very soon if they had wanted to. The whole thing runs like a train on two tracks. Both tracks are called “political will”. And the train is not travelling in the direction of “caring for citizens”. I don’t know where it’s going. But I do know that none of this had anything to do with care and diligence, but at best with political power.

Read more

The Ministry of Truth Is on The Horizon And Has A Lot To Do

by

New data on safety issues of Covid-19 “vaccines” and their impurities show this

When I was young and read Orwell’s “1984” at school, what Orwell described was about 14 years in the future. An eternity for a schoolboy. Back then, we were all sure that the “Ministry of Truth” and the social structures described there would only occur under communism. No more could we imagine in 1970 that the Soviet Union could ever end and with it the threat of world communism. That’s how history works: it amazes you, and faster than you think, because things keep happening that you never thought possible.

Now the Ministry of Truth is on the horizon. Unthinkable just 10 years ago. Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed that the new Medienstaatsvertrag (“Federal Media Treaty, a unified regulatory framework agreed upon by the federal states within Germany) already gives the state media authorities the right to criticize and ban published articles. There would be no pre-censorship, but there would be post-censorship. The EU Digital Services Act has been in force since February 17, 2024. It requires operators of digital services, i.e. web platforms, hosting organizations and social media, to independently monitor and remove “hate speech and disinformation”. Who decides what constitutes “hate speech and misinformation”? Good question. In case of doubt, apparently a commission set up by the government.

As always, France is again one step ahead. Macron already had a law against fake news passed in 2018 and recently added to it, as a colleague from France confirmed to me: anyone who advises against medical measures that are scientifically proven and generally recommended will be liable to prosecution and up to three years in prison. The law is apparently intended to combat sectarianism. However, it is easy to see that opposition to medical measures recommended by official government bodies, such as COVID “vaccinations”, are clearly covered. That’s why it’s called the Pfizer law in France.

Read more