The pandemic is over, vigilance must remain

– 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

“The coffin must be even bigger than a Heidelberg barrel…”

– to fit the many skeletons in the closet of the official Corona narrative:

Our critique of Watson et al’s modelling study is published – Vaccine side effects, unexplained deaths demand clarification

Occasionally I sing the “Dichterliebe”. This is the song cycle that Robert Schumann set to music based on poems by German poet Heinrich Heine. In it, Heine came to terms with his unhappy love. In the last song, No. 16, (here in a very beautiful recording, with Fritz Wunderlich), the poet sings:

The old evil songs,

the dreams evil and bad,
Let us bury them now,
get a big coffin.
Into it I put many a thing,
yet I say not yet what.

The coffin must be even bigger
than a Heidelberg barrel…

Heinrich Heine

I felt reminded of this several times these days, trying to find out if Covid-19 vaccinations have prevented deaths, and seeing the plethora of information slowly oozing out of all corners: Excess mortality, deaths, severe vaccine side effects. Even the world’s vaccination champion Gates now admits that it all didn’t work out as planned after all.

I want to address such questions in this blog. First, I address our new analysis on that model by the Imperial College working group of Watson and others [1]. Our analysis just became available online [2]. And then I discuss some recent information on the issue of side effects and excess mortality despite or because of vaccinations.

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

Risk-Benefit Ratio of Covid-19 Vaccination

Thoughts on Easter, the risk-benefit ratio of Covid-19 vaccination and key sources of information

No matter how you feel about Easter, whether you actively celebrate it as a Christian, with nostalgic memories of hunting for Easter eggs as a child, or whether you are a modern, science-oriented person who thinks Easter beliefs are superstitions: It is a holiday and should be celebrated. The arrival of spring was already celebrated in pre-Christian times. Christianity has given these ancient feasts a new face with the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. What was ever truly alive – that is, standing in the fullness of God – does not die. At best, it is transformed. Or rather, it is resurrected into new life. That is Easter, and that is what is to be celebrated.

We have received a small Easter present, I think, in that the German Bundestag has rejected compulsory vaccination by a large majority. You can find out here how the parliamentary groups voted: the majority of SPD and Greens voted in favour of compulsory vaccination, most representatives of CDU, AfD, FDP and Die Linke voted against it. I suggest you write to your MPs, either thanking them, or admonishing and reminding them again. You can filter the results to see the MPs who represent your constituency and how they voted, and then write an email. Maybe our MWGFD action helped; because we sent our exit strategy to all MPs. You can download it there and send it again to the MPs who voted for compulsory vaccination, perhaps with a few more personal words.

Read more

Intensive Care Units, Compulsory Vaccination And More

Let us begin with a little quiz. I recently found the following text on disastrous conditions in German intensive care units in a scientific journal. A survey among nurses is reported there, and the authors write:

Intensive care – care of the population in jeopardy

When asked about a general dissatisfaction in the profession, 68 percent [of the intensive care nurses surveyed]responded with a “yes”. A worsening of working conditions in recent years was felt by 97 percent of the respondents.” 97% say that the workload has increased significantly, and working conditions have worsened considerably. 37% want to leave the profession, 34% want to reduce working hours. “The reasons for the poor working conditions mentioned by intensive care nurses are clear. They include the high workload, low esteem especially by hospital owners, poor care and staffing ratios, and mediocre pay.”

Prize question: what year is this text from?

It is from 2019 and refers to a survey from before [1]. Even then, on March 8, 2019, intensive care physician Karagianidis sounded the alarm and wrote that the care of the population was in jeopardy. And this is not because we have too little capacity, but because we treat our medical staff too poorly. In the same paper, Karagianidis and colleagues note: Germany has by far the highest intensive care bed capacity in Europe. The problems are structural, nurses are paid too little. The hospitals, especially the private ones, want (and need) to make profits and do so by cutting personnel costs. Employers give nurses too little appreciation in the form of adequate pay, flexible services, sufficient time, etc. It is worth looking at the graphs of the statistics in the original paper. They tell you everything you need to know.

Read more