lbry://@Canal007#f/Bienvenido-a-la-Nueva-Normalidad#6
:quality(75)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/elcomercio/UKXMMQI5EJAXRMO3ZNGJETJ2TE.jpg)
Archivo de la categoría: Comunicación e Información
DATOS ( EN SERIO Y CON RIGOR METODOLÓGICO)PARA UN ANALISIS Y CRITICA MATERIALISTAS SOBRE LO QUE REALMENTE IMPLICA EL COR O NA V
Kary Mullis, premio Nobel 1993 por inventar la prueba PCR; Santa Mónica, Calif., 7 de diciembre de 1997 (Video, 4 min.; Engl., subt en español):
https://lbry.tv/@kikei:e/La-explicaci%C3%B3n-m%C3%A1s-clara-de-por-qu%C3%A9-la-prueba-PCR-no-es-apta-para-diagn%C3%B3stico-en-palabras-de-su-inventor-el-premio-Nobel-de-qu%C3%ADmica-1993-Kary-Banks-Mullis.:e
Dr. Jur. Reiner Fuellmich (co fundador de la Fundación Comisión Corona [Stiftung-Corona-Ausschuss])- El único propósito de la prueba PCR es asustar a la gente
19 de noviembre de 2020
(Deutsch, subt. español; 2 min) https://www.bitchute.com/video/AyZYRaJyHewj/
Performance La nueva normalidad (Berna, Suiza)
10 de noviembre de 2020
(Deutsch, subt. español; 3:22 min.) https://www.bitchute.com/video/pxTWwT8ZJGaR/
COR o Na: Tribunal portugués dictamina que las pruebas de P C R son poco fiables e ilegales para poner en cuarentena a las personas
Quintanarooall.com
19 de noviembre de 2020
https://www.quintanarooall.com/noticias/principales/item/39509-tribunal-portugues-dictamina-que-las-pruebas-de-pcr-son-poco-fiables-e-ilegales-para-poner-en-cuarentena-a-las-personas
Tribunal portugués dictamina que las pruebas de PCR son poco fiables e ilegales para poner en cuarentena a las personas
El tribunal declaró que la confiabilidad de la prueba depende de la cantidad de ciclos utilizados y la carga viral presente. Citando a Jaafar et al. 2020 , el tribunal concluye que
“Si alguien obtiene un resultado positivo mediante PCR cuando se usa un umbral de 35 ciclos o más (como es la regla en la mayoría de los laboratorios en Europa y EE. UU.), La probabilidad de que dicha persona esté infectada es menor del 3%, y la probabilidad que dicho resultado sea un falso positivo es del 97% ”.
El tribunal señala además que se desconoce el umbral de ciclo utilizado para las pruebas de PCR que se están realizando actualmente en Portugal.
Los ciclos de umbral utilizados en las pruebas de PCR en la India están entre 37 y 40, lo que hace que la confiabilidad de la prueba de PCR sea inferior al 3% y la tasa de falsos positivos tan alta como el 97%.
Este caso se refería al hecho de que cuatro personas habían sido puestas en cuarentena por la Autoridad Sanitaria Regional. De estos, uno había dado positivo por COVID mediante una prueba de PCR; se consideró que los otros tres habían sufrido un alto riesgo de exposición. En consecuencia, la Autoridad Sanitaria Regional decidió que los cuatro eran infecciosos y un peligro para la salud, lo que requería que se aislaran.
“Dada la cantidad de dudas científicas que existen – como lo expresan los expertos, es decir, los que importan – sobre la confiabilidad de las pruebas de PCR, dada la falta de información sobre los parámetros analíticos de las pruebas y la ausencia de un diagnóstico médico que respalde la de infección o riesgo, no hay forma de que este tribunal pueda determinar si C era realmente un portador del virus SARS-CoV-2, o si A, B y D habían tenido un alto riesgo de exposición al mismo. “
También es importante recordar que la PCR se inventó como una forma de crear copias de material genético. Nunca tuvo la intención de ser una herramienta de diagnóstico.
Las pruebas estándar de coronavirus arrojan una gran cantidad de casos positivos a diario. Estas pruebas se realizan en base a protocolos defectuosos de la OMS que están diseñados para incluir también casos de falsos positivos.
Este hecho sobre los falsos positivos de las pruebas de PCR fue observado por primera vez en público por el Dr. Beda M. Stadler, biólogo suizo, profesor emérito y ex director del Instituto de Inmunología de la Universidad de Berna.
Entonces, si hacemos una prueba de corona de PCR en una persona inmune, no se detecta un virus, sino una pequeña parte rota del genoma viral. La prueba da positivo mientras queden pequeñas partes destrozadas del virus. Correcto: incluso si los virus infecciosos han muerto hace mucho tiempo, una prueba de corona puede dar positivo, porque el método de PCR multiplica incluso una pequeña fracción del material genético viral lo suficiente [para ser detectado].
Anteriormente, la autoridad sanitaria nacional de Finlandia incluso cuestionó el protocolo de análisis de la OMS . La OMS había pedido a los países que realicen pruebas a tantos pacientes como sea posible para detectar el coronavirus.
Finlandia se quedó sin capacidad de prueba y comenzó a limitar las pruebas de coronavirus solo a los grupos más vulnerables y al personal sanitario. La autoridad sanitaria nacional de Finlandia dijo que realizar pruebas a personas con síntomas leves sería un desperdicio de recursos sanitarios.
En una revelación sorprendente, el jefe de seguridad sanitaria de Finlandia, Mika Salminen, desestimó el aviso de la OMS diciendo que la OMS no comprende las pandemias y que su protocolo de prueba de coronavirus es ilógico y no funciona.
Entonces, si los protocolos de prueba de la OMS se basan realmente en las tecnologías y metodologías de investigación más confiables, precisas y bien obtenidas disponibles en todo el mundo, ¿no deberían haber sabido acerca de su efectividad insignificante y su impacto en causar pánico y caos? De hecho, la OMS sabe que no funciona y, además, esta no es la primera vez que se expresan críticas de este tipo.
En el pasado, en 2010, la OMS fue sorprendida fingiendo una pandemia y se vio obligada a admitir que su metodología para medir la viralidad o la propagación de la enfermedad, en lugar de su gravedad, era incorrecta.
Para obtener las últimas actualizaciones sobre el brote, consulte nuestra Cobertura de coronavirus .
Envíe sus sugerencias y presentaciones completando este formulario o escríbanos directamente al correo electrónico proporcionado. Únase a nosotros en WhatsApp para obtener más información y actualizaciones.
GreatGameIndia es una revista sobre geopolítica y relaciones internacionales. Conozca las amenazas geopolíticas a las que se enfrenta India en nuestro libro exclusivo India in Cognitive Disonance . Se puede acceder a los números anteriores de la revista desde la sección Archivos .
(GreatGameIndia:https://greatgameindia.com/portuguese-court-pcr-tests-unreliable/ )
UN ARTÍCULO De Gregorio SELSER.De cómo se fueron viendo obligados muchos Estados de Iberoamérica, a pasar de grandes productores y exportadores de CAFÉ,a ir entrando, aun a pesar de sí mismos, en el cultivo y negocio de exportación de cocaína, hacia los Estados Unidos y / o Europa.
INTROFILOSOFIA(NOTA): Proponemos la lectura de este artículo del gran periodista y crítico historiador, uno de los más reconocidos analistas políticos sobre asuntos de Iberoamérica, o como el mismo Gregorio Selser gustaba decir: Nuestra América. En el artículo podemos comprobar el nivel de agudeza crítica que mostraba cada uno de sus artículos periodísticos.
Prensa Latina – México
El Independiente – España (NOTA de Introfilosofía sobre este diario español: El Independiente fue presionado , hasta su definitivo cierre, siendo presidente del Gobierno de España, el socialdemócrata Felipe González, del PSOE, Partido Socialista Obrero Español.Los motivos de este presionar y rápido cierre, por quiebra, según se dijo en su momento- mera cortina de humo para tapar la realidad de su cierre, cuya causa fue el hecho de que este diario fue el ÚNICO que se opuso abiertamente a la participación de España en la llamada Iª Guerra del Golfo, y además, por su apoyo a las luchas de los mineros de Asturias y León( regiones tradicionalmente productoras de carbón), contra la política felipista (por Felipe González); (ordenada desde el núcleo duro de la Unión Europea) política llamada de reconversión industrial, dirigida desde Alemania, o desde la Unión Europea, siempre excelente coartada (“lo dice la UE”) para los políticos españoles, cuando de aplicar medidas rudas y muy poco o nada populares, que fueron convirtiendo a España, desde finales de los años ochenta del S XX , hasta el presente, ya entrado el XXI(fines de 2020) en un auténtico Estado vasallo de Alemania, y de su IV Reich en formación, llamado de modo demagógico pero “sentimentalmente eficaz “, Unión Europea, cuyo himno no es otro sino el conocidísimo Himno a la Alegría, que canta el coro en la Novena Sinfonía de Beethoven.Un canto que resulta ser un poema del poeta del Idealismo alemán, Schiller. (nota 1) Idealismo que oculta los intereses del Estado germano, bajo vanas quimeras y ensueños visionarios que engañan y ocultan la realidad subyacente a semejantes dosis de IDEALISMO irracional, pero sicológica y políticamente útiles a sus intereses como Reich (Imperio, en alemán)
nota 1: datos tomados de Wikipedia:
El himno de la Unión Europea, oficialmente Himno Europeo, es uno de los cuatro símbolos oficiales de la Unión Europea.1 El himno tiene su origen en la Oda a la Alegría (An die Freude en alemán), escrita por Friedrich von Schiller en 1785 y la composición realizada por Ludwig van Beethoven para su novena sinfonía. Fue adoptado oficialmente en 1985.1Este himno, según la Unión Europea, no sustituye a los himnos nacionales de los países de la UE, sino que “celebra los valores que todos ellos comparten”.1
FECHA DE PUBLICACIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO De Gregorio SELSER: 1-8-89
Guerra del café vs. guerra de la droga
Hace pocas semanas los países productores de café en América Latina fueron sacudidos por el desplome de su precio en el mercado internacional. Lo han resentido ya los principales productores y exportadores, Brasil y Colombia, pero además los que les siguen en importancia, tales como Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras. Para Nicaragua, significará, según cifras extraoficiales, que dejará de percibir 50 millones de dólares en divisas duras. Otro castigo a su economía.
Tanto Brasil como Colombia no ocultaron, desde el primer momento de producida la catástrofe, su inquina contra Estados Unidos, a quien imputaron una interesada manipulación de precios, a la baja. Empero, ninguna de sus expresiones oficiales de disgusto y censura alcanzaron el nivel y la modalidad de crítica que el producido en la ciudad colombiana de Cartagena de Indias, durante la actual celebración de la reunión del Grupo de los Ocho, organización regional que agrupa a México, Venezuela, Colombia, Panamá, Argentina, Brasil, Perú y Uruguay.
Allí, de un modo escasamente diplomático, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores brasileño, Roberto de Abreu Sodré, declaró sin tapujos que su patria y Colombia disponen de suficientes reservas de café como para hacer frente a una guerra de precios en el mercado de grano, que como se sabe está regido por la OIC (Organización Internacional del Café). De un modo áspero agregó:
“Si Estados Unidos escogió la guerra, habrá guerra. En la guerra de precios hay dos países que tienen munición de guerra en cantidad y calidad, Colombia y Brasil.”
Su colega colombiano, Julio Londoño, tras reafirmar ante la prensa su coincidencia con el malestar prevaleciente entre los países productores de ese grano, deslizó empero su acrimonio y censura en una dirección totalmente inesperada. Dijo: “La caída en los precios repercutirá sensiblemente en la lucha contra el narcotráfico. Este problema podría agudizarse en países como Brasil, Colombia, México, Perú, Ecuador y algunas naciones centroamericanas, al reducirse los ingresos por la baja de los precios de productos como el café, puesto que se dispondrá de menores fondos e incentivos para sustituir los cultivos de coca y mariguana”.
La mancha geográfica de productores de coca, mariguana y otros entorpecentes cubre ya vastas porciones de Bolivia, Brasil, Perú, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela y México. Otros países son mencionados como escalas de tránsito hacia Estados Unidos e incluyen a Panamá, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Haití, República Dominicana, Jamaica e Islas Bahamas entre otros. En Costa Rica un reciente dictamen de una comisión de la Asamblea Legislativa probó dramáticamente que la llamada “Suiza de América” no sólo es ya un campo de aterrizaje intermitente para el Cártel de Medellín, sino que poderosos narcotraficantes financiaron las campañas electorales de los presidentes Luis Alberto Monge y Oscar Arias.
Peor aún, también reseñó que el país había sido utilizado como repetido escenario para el intercambio de armas para los contrarrevolucionarios nicaragüenses (contras), por cocaína y mariguana hacia Estados Unidos, con conocimiento y autorización del vicealmirante John Poindexter, el teniente coronel Oliver North, el jefe local de la CIA Joseph Fernandez, el embajador norteamericano Lewis Tambs y el hacendado John Hull (que inmediatamente huyó de Costa Rica). La citada comisión solicitó que a todos ellos, más otra serie de individuos implicados en esas transacciones delincuenciales, les fuera prohibida la entrada en el país.
Nicaragua no es mencionada en los informes de la Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), organismo de control de estupefacientes de Estados Unidos, como país productor o de escala de tránsito de narcóticos. Cuba, en fecha reciente, expuso también de un modo dramático que el problema había llegado a sus costas y alcanzado a elevados jefes militares hasta entonces insospechables e introduciendo el factor corrupción con efectos penosos en funcionarios de confianza del gobierno.
Las alusiones de Abreu y Londoño simbiotizan productos tan disímiles como el café y las drogas ilícitas, como formando parte de un mismo universo problemático. No hay duda de que se trata de un mensaje nada casual dirigido a Washington y que simplificadamente diría: “-Si Estados Unidos abate los precios de nuestros principales productos tradicionales de exportación, ¿no está obligando a los productores de café a volcarse a la producción masiva de cocaína y mariguana y al negocio respectivo del narcotráfico?” Este tipo de advertencias en código fácilmente descifrable viene siendo intermitentemente emitido por dirigentes de países que nada tienen en contra de Estados Unidos y se consideran sus amigos. Colombia y Brasil se cuentan tradicionalmente entre los mejores aliados de esa potencia. Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, Brasil despachó a Italia un ejército para colaborar con los Aliados, y durante la Guerra de Corea, Colombia fue el único páis latinoamericano que despachó un batallón armado en apoyo de su aliado mayor en la región.
Ello no impide que ambos se sientan ahora víctimas. El ministro Sodré fue muy explícito en Cartagena de Indias: “La maniobra de Estados Unidos y otros países, que desafortunadamente pertenecen al grupo de los productores (alusión, entre otros, a México), quebraron el acuerdo cong ran daño para todos”. Colombia y Brasil disponen de millones de sacos de café, de reserva. La “guerra” puede ser todavía librada por ambos países con ese recurso. Si la perdieran, ¿sería la única opción restante la otra conflagración que, obviamente, nadie querría? Para suavizar su rispidez inicial, Londoño informó que hay una posibilidad de reinstaurar el quebrado pacto cafetalero.
NOTA DE INTROFILOSOFIA: Si alguno de quienes leyeren este texto, estuviera interesado en conocer más detalladamente el proceso del cierre del diario El Independiente (España), en el que Gregorio Selser colaboraba en los últimos años de su vida, recomendamos leer este texto a continuación:
139
La desaparición de El Independiente:
tramas, competencia y fracaso empresarial
AUTOR:
Maximiliano FERNÁNDEZ FERNÁNDEZ
Universidad Católica de Ávila
FUENTE: Revista
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
RESUMEN
El Independiente (Madrid, 20/6/1987-31/10/1991), uno de los periódicos más críticos en la reciente historia
democrática española, desapareció no sólo porque “molestaba al poder” y porque la Organización Nacional
de Ciegos Españoles (ONCE) “decidió cerrarlo” ante las presiones ejercidas por otros medios, como han sostenido
sus directivos; es decir, sucumbió no sólo por las tramas políticas y empresariales. Desapareció por la
convergencia de otras causas o factores que lo hacían inviable desde el punto de vista económico: por un contexto
de dura competencia periodística, de concentración mediática y de bajos índices de lectura; por su incapacidad
para mejorar ingresos por ventas y publicidad —muy por debajo de competidores como El Mundo—
y por sus elevados costes.
Tratamos de demostrar que la ONCE-Divercisa malogró cerca de 4.000 millones de pesetas como principal
accionista, que no se atrevió a consolidar el gran grupo mediático que estaba formando y que los datos económicos
determinaron cierre.
Palabras clave: gestión, tramas, competencia, presiones, concentración, inviabilidad
The Disappearance of El Independiente:
Strategies, Competition and Business Failure
ABSTRACT
The disappearance of El Independiente (Madrid, 20/6/1987-31/10/1991), one of the most critical newspapers
in the recent democratic history of Spain, resulted not only because it “troubled the power establishment” or
because The National Organization for the Blind (ONCE) had decided to “close it”, as their managers contended,
faced with the pressures of other media; that is to say, it didn’t succumb solely in response to political
or business strategies. It disappeared because of the convergence of other causes or factors which made
it unfeasible from an economic point of view: as a result of tough competition in the journalistic field, of
media concentration and low readership; because of its failure to increase revenue by means of sales and
publicity — very modest compared to competitors such as El Mundo — and its elevated production costs.
We attempt to show that ONCE-Diversia lost almost 4.000 million pesetas as principal shareholder, that it
failed to consolidate the great media group it was forming and that economic factors were decisive in the
close.
Key words: gestion, strategies, competition and business failure.
En la Historia de la Comunicación en general y del periodismo en particular
han figurado tradicionalmente centenares de cabeceras con fechas precisas de fundación,
declaraciones programáticas, nombres de fundadores, directores y redacciones,
etc. No todas, por el contrario, anunciaron su cierre y menos aún fueron las
que se permitieron comentar los motivos del mismo, señalar a sus responsables y
hasta escribir algún epílogo. Tampoco resulta habitual pasar tempranamente por el
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
ISSN: 1137-0734
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
140 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
prisma de la historia y que se analicen los contextos de la fundación y clausura,
sus efectos y repercusiones…
El Independiente, surgido como semanario el 20 de junio de 1987, transcurridos
ya 20 años, y convertido en diario el 4 de julio de 1989, fue uno de los periódicos
más críticos, quizás el que más, y una especie de mito, en el actual sistema
democrático español, hasta el momento de su desaparición el 31 de octubre de
1991. Se trata seguramente de la más clara manifestación de los costes de la independencia
periodística y la libertad de expresión. En sus dos últimos números,
anunció y recogió numerosas reacciones sobre su cierre, facilitando el estudio de
su trayectoria e incluso el de las empresas que operaban con mayor fuerza en plena
carrera hacia la concentración mediática.
En los ejemplares del 29, 30 y 31 de octubre de 1991, y en los que editaban
entonces otras cabeceras como El País, El Mundo y Abc, por citar los de mayor
difusión entre la prensa española del momento, se coincidía en culpar a la
Organización Nacional de Ciegos (ONCE), hasta entonces propietaria de la empresa
editora Ediobser, y a Servifilm, como compradora de sus acciones, de cerrar el
periódico a cambio de algunos beneficios políticos. Y esa misma causa se ha estado
esgrimiendo durante mucho tiempo por los directivos del diario, que en algunos
casos extienden las responsabilidades al gobierno de Felipe González.
En el presente estudio, se trata de analizar, con la perspectiva del tiempo, con
datos registrales y con un análisis objetivo de sus magnitudes económicas (ventas,
publicidad, costes, situación del mercado…), incluso comparándolas con las de
otras cabeceras (especialmente con El Mundo, como principal competidor), el conjunto
de causas que de manera convergente confluyeron para el cierre de esta
publicación, que se presentó a lo largo de su trayectoria como la más progresista
entre los diarios de su época. En la misma medida se analizan las condiciones
objetivas de mercado (publicidad y lectores) en las que se desenvolvió y el fenómeno
de la concentración mediática que definía el contexto periodístico y el nuevo
orden o sistema de comunicación en España.
1. INTERESES POLÍTICOS Y EMPRESARIALES
La teoría de que el cierre se produjo por decisión de la Organización Nacional
de Ciegos de España (ONCE) y de Servifilm Spain Cinematográfica, respondiendo
a intereses políticos gubernamentales y a contrapartidas, se esgrimió en las páginas
de El Independiente, sin atender a las cifras objetivas de Ediobser como empresa
editora y sin apenas cuestionar su viabilidad. En cambio, en otros periódicos nacionales
de la época estaba más presente la idea de quiebra económica e inviabilidad.
El País concretamente titulaba el 29 de octubre que “Hachuel entra con un
15% en Tele 5 a cambio de comprar El Independiente”. Y su redactor José F.
Beaumont detallaba que “El financiero Jacques Hachuel se ha hecho cargo del
72% de las acciones que tenía la ONCE en El Independiente, periódico que soporta
2.645 millones de pérdidas al año, a cambio de asegurar una participación de un
15% en el canal de televisión privada Tele 5, en el que la ONCE participa con un
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
141
25%, según fuentes que han intervenido en esta operación”. Se añadía en la noticia
que “Hachuel, a través de su empresa Servifilm España Cinematográfica, se hará
cargo de un 5% de la participación total (un 15%) que tiene en Tele 5 el empresario
extremeño Ángel Medrano y de un 10% que será extraído de las participaciones
de Chocolates Trapa o de la propia ONCE”1.
Dos días después volvía a personalizar en el financiero la decisión del cierre:
“Jacques Hachuel, nuevo propietario de El Independiente, comunicó ayer a la
dirección y a los trabajadores del periódico su decisión de cerrarlo momentáneamente
“por razones económicas” y de editarlo en la semana del 5 al 10 de diciembre
como semanario”2. El periódico del grupo Prisa aludía asimismo a la situación
de quiebra y a que las pérdidas del rotativo se elevaban a 220 millones de pesetas
mensuales. Lo momentáneo acabaría convirtiéndose, como tantas veces, en definitivo
y nunca volvió a editarse como diario ni como semanario.
La agencia Efe y El Mundo, por su parte, adelantaban ya el 26 de octubre la
noticia de la venta de las acciones por parte de la ONCE al empresario Jacques
Hachuel, en los 328 millones de pesetas que la organización de ciegos había pagado
en abril, y el deseo de Hachuel de convertirlo en semanario. En el mismo sentido
se pronunciaban el consejero delegado de Divercisa, Fernando Ónega, y el consejero
delegado y vicepresidente de Ediobser, Alberto Ferrer3. Las acciones, que
entonces suponían el 70% del total, fueron vendidas por Divercisa S.A. y Uniprex
S.A. a Servifilm Spain Cinematográfica S.A., propiedad del empresario francés.
El día del cierre, el mismo en el que los responsables del periódico El Sol destituyeron
al editor, al director y a sus adjuntos, El Mundo sostenía que “la desaparición
como diario de El Independiente es consecuencia directa de la venta del
72% de sus acciones, hasta ahora en poder la ONCE, al financiero Jacques
Hachuel”. Pero apuntaba un posible trueque o juego de intereses al que se han aferrado
siempre los directivos de El Independiente para argumentar a favor de los
factores exógenos como causantes del cierre: “A cambio, Hachuel habría entrado
con un 15% en el accionariado de la cadena privada Tele 5″4.
El director general de la organización de ciegos, Miguel Durán, declaró la víspera
del cierre que la organización vendía las acciones del periódico “por los
muchos ataques externos que la ONCE ha recibido en estos meses por su participación
en los medios de comunicación, especialmente en los escritos”5.
En El Independiente se iba más lejos a la hora de señalar los factores exógenos,
y se anunciaban acciones legales contra la venta del periódico: “Tenemos
constancia de las presiones, algunas cercanas al chantaje, a la ONCE y al propio
Durán para que se salieran de un campo reservado a los poderes tradicionales”. Y,
a párrafo seguido, se añadía: “Pero la ONCE sabe que no acaba aquí su papel. Es
la responsable de los perjuicios que haya ocasionado tratando de dar por finalizada
la publicación diaria de El Independiente, por sorpresa, sin contar con los trabajadores
del periódico ni con los otros accionistas”6.
Los representantes de los empleados, el comité de empresa, en concreto, anunciaba
haber “iniciado el proceso de asesoramiento legal en los terrenos civil, laboral
y mercantil para clarificar los términos de la operación de venta de las acciones
de Ediobser a Servifilms Spain Cinematográfica, SA, garantizar los derechos labo-
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
142 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
rales de los trabajadores e iniciar las oportunas acciones legales”7. En carta abierta
a Miguel Durán, se le acusaba de causar perjuicio a los empleados y a la empresa,
anunciando que se reservaba “el derecho a ejercer las oportunas acciones legales”8.
Y colectivos sociales, como los sindicatos UGT y CCOO, por boca de sus
secretarios generales, Nicolás Redondo y Antonio Gutiérrez, IU, trabajadores del
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, comités de empresas, redacciones
de diferentes publicaciones, entre ellas El Mundo, El Sol, Ya, Diario 16, El
Observador, Cambio 16, Época, Interviú, Tiempo, El Siglo, Mundo Obrero,
Ajoblanco… y de Telemadrid, RTVE, Antena 3 Televisión, Cope, Onda Madrid, el
presidente de la Asociación de la Prensa de Madrid y políticos como Jorge
Vestrynge, Pablo Castellano, Gabriel Camuñas, Nicolás Sartorius, Aleix Vidal
Cuadras, Raúl Morodo, Rodrigo Rato, la dirección del CDS, Simón Sánchez
Montero o intelectuales como José Luis López Aranguren, Julio Caro Baroja o
Julio Cerón y periodistas de distintos medios, como Luis del Olmo, coincidían en
señalar que el diario representaba las ideas de progreso y que su desaparición era
un síntoma de la aniquilación de la izquierda.
También el entonces director y las principales firmas del periódico se sumaban
a la denuncia. De esta forma, Manuel Soriano culpaba al Gobierno y a los poderes
establecidos, a la oposición conservadora y a los otros periódicos: “El
Independiente molesta al Gobierno por su espíritu radicalmente crítico, irrita a
otros periódicos porque les disputa un espacio en el estrecho mercado, lo odian los
sectores más conservadores del país y lo combate ese “establishment” que siempre
mandó en España y al que se ha entregado Felipe González. Entre todos han creado
las condiciones para ahogar una voz libre y heterodoxa, que nació al margen de
los compromisos políticos y de los intereses económicos tejidos en la transición
democrática”9.
Abel Hernández, entonces adjunto a la Dirección, reclamaba conocer las razones
políticas del cierre, denunciado que “las oscuras tramas político-financieras,
con fuertes ramificaciones en los medios de comunicación, son la principal amenaza
a la libertad de expresión10.
En Abc, el propio ex director de El Independiente, Pablo Sebastián, bajo el
ropaje de Aurora Pavón, defendía con toda su fuerza la teoría de la conspiración
contra el periódico, aludiendo al “crimen imperfecto” que se había planificado “en
el despacho de Alfonso Guerra en Moncloa” y a la “autoría material de la ONCE”,
con Jacques Hachuel como “intermediario”11. Incluso meses antes del cierre, invitaba
a una ofensiva contra los propios empresarios que sostenían la deficitaria
empresa: “Larga vida y zafarrancho de combate permanente si el del bastón, tiburón
ciego con un parche en cada ojo, no mete la garrota en la rueda del timón para
torcer el rumbo de tan romántico velero”12.
2. LAS CONDICIONES DEL MERCADO DE LA COMUNICACIÓN
De manera que los responsables del periódico y las fuerzas que lo alentaron —
que no respaldaron políticamente ni apoyaron económicamente—, han recurrido
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
143
siempre a factores exógenos para explicar el cierre de El Independiente y a determinadas
tramas empresariales y políticas. Sin embargo y al margen de los alegatos
periodísticos y de la épica esproncediana, un análisis más desapasionado y con los
datos de tirada, publicidad y balance económico sobre la mesa, inducen a valorar,
al menos en la misma medida, otros factores de carácter interno que ponen de
manifiesto su propia inviabilidad. Ahora bien, no puede desvincularse una causa
de la otra, aunque resulta difícil cuantificar en qué medida la escasez de publicidad
se debía a las exclusiones y discriminaciones gubernamentales y en qué medida se
debía a la reducida tirada del periódico, a su formato durante mucho tiempo tamaño
sábana, a su izquierdista línea editorial…
Para empezar, El Independiente había nacido en un contexto de pluralidad
informativa y de aumentos publicitarios, pero en una sociedad que seguía manteniendo
bajos niveles de lectura, lo que provocaba una dura competencia empresarial
y una implacable selección darwiniana de medios.
En los años de la transición democrática desaparecieron buen número de cabeceras,
algunas quizás por causas políticas, pero la mayoría por problemas de inviabilidad,
ya que no se explica el cierre de una empresa periodística, en un sistema
democrático, si su marcha económica es favorable. La llamada Prensa y Radio del
Movimiento acumulaba pérdidas de 1.365 millones de pesetas en 1975 y en torno
a 6.000 en 1979. La supresión del Organismo Autónomo de Medios de
Comunicación Social, que había acogido a la Prensa del Movimiento y a los diarios
Pueblo y Marca, fue aprobada en 1982 por las últimas Cortes con mayoría de
UCD, antes de la victoria del PSOE. Cerraron los periódicos del régimen, como El
Alcázar (1978), Arriba (1984) y los de la cadena del Movimiento Nacional, incluido
Pueblo (1984), que había bajado de 200.000 ejemplares en los buenos tiempos
de Emilio Romero a 40.000 y acumulaba pérdidas anuales de 1.400 millones de
pesetas.
También cerraron en el último cuarto de siglo la prestigiosa revista de Joaquín
Ruiz Jiménez Cuadernos para el diálogo (1978), la revista Destino (1980),
Informaciones (1922-1983), los aludidos diarios Pueblo (1939-1984) y Arriba
(1984), las distintas Hoja del Lunes, Triunfo (1962-1982), Claro (1991), El
Independiente (1987-1991), El Sol (1990-92), El Viejo Topo (reaparece en 1993),
La Calle, Ya (1935-1995), Diario 16 (1976-2001) Y desaparecieron asimismo la
mayoría de los centros de la cadena Antena 3 Radio —absorbidos por la Ser—,
Canal 10 y otros medios escritos y hablados.
En el año de aparición de El Independiente, en 1987, la difusión media de la
prensa española estaba en 2,7 millones de ejemplares (69,8 copias por 1.000 habitantes)
o 3,1 (79,7 por 1.000) si se incluye la prensa deportiva, según datos de
Fundesco de 1989, que situaban a España en el puesto 42º del mundo y en el 11º
de la entonces Europa de los Doce. “España, con el 12% de la población de la CE,
apenas consume el 4 por 100 de los aproximadamente 76 millones de ejemplares
diarios que circulan en las 12 naciones. El índice medio de difusión español es
solamente una tercera parte del europeo, que se eleva a 237,5 ejemplares por 1.000
habitantes”13. En el siguiente ejercicio, el de 1988, el incremento neto de la prensa
diaria se sitúa en el 2,6% para la de información general o 3,7 si se tiene en cuenta
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
144 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
la deportiva; en 1989, la difusión se eleva a 3.260.000 ejemplares vendidos, un
84,7 por 1.000 habitantes…
De los 64 periódicos de información general controlados por la OJD en 1988,
un total de 58 registraron subidas en la difusión y 13 retrocedieron, lo que confirma
la tendencia al alza de la prensa española; pero también refleja las dificultades
para una buena parte de las cabeceras. El problema era que entonces, El País
(376.230 ejemplares de difusión OJD en 1988) y Diario 16 (139.956), fundados
poco antes, estaban consolidados y en expansión, junto a los tradicionales Abc
(267.772), La Vanguardia (202.741), etc. y no parecía que hubiera lugar para tantas
cabeceras nuevas: El Mundo, El Independiente, El Sol, Claro…
Más esperanzador resultaba el dato de ingresos por publicidad, que experimentaban
entonces en España una subida desde los 48.000 millones de pesetas (288,5
millones de euros) de 1982 a 188.750 de 1988 (aumento del 293%), según estimacines
de J. Walter Thompson, que sitúan a nuestro país en la cabeza de la Europa
de los Doce en la relación de ingresos/difusión. La multinacional de compra de
medios Carat ubica a España en el cuarto lugar de Europa en inversión publicitaria
en 1990, con 8.500 millones de dólares, por debajo de Alemania (11.000), Francia
(10.200) y Gran Bretaña (8.600)14. Y se hace eco también del fenómeno de la concentración
al constatar la presencia de siete grandes grupos en buen número de
medios de comunicación: Reed Internacional (2.000 millones de dólares en 1990)
Fininvest (1.800), Bertelsmann, Hachette, Maxwell, Axel Springer y Hersant.
En 1987, el año de aparición de El Independiente como semanario, las empresas
periodísticas españolas declararon unos beneficios netos de 11.658 millones de
pesetas, siete veces más que en 1984. En el ejercicio siguiente, la facturación de
los medios impresos llegó a 275.250 millones de pesetas en concepto de publicidad
y a 140.000 por ventas y suscripciones15.
Los rendimientos publicitarios de la prensa española en 1988 se situaban bastante
por encima de los costes en los periódicos de más tirada: El País: 129 ptas.
por ejemplar y día (de los 25.079 millones de pesetas de ingresos por publicidad y
ventas, el 70,9% correspondían al primer capítulo); Abc: 117 ptas. por ejemplar y
día (ingresos anuales de 17.840 millones, de los que el 64% correspondían a publicidad);
La Vanguardia: 127 (el 73,6% de sus 12.784 millones correspondientes a
publicidad), Diario 16: 87 ptas. por ejemplar y día, etc.
De manera que el índice de lectores no aconsejaba sacar a la luz nuevas publicaciones,
aunque el de facturación y publicidad era más alentador; pero hacían
falta tirada y buenos equipos para captarla o formar parte de grandes grupos de
comunicación para aprovechar sus sinergias o tener ciertas concomitancias con el
poder, circunstancias que no se producían en el caso de El Independiente.
3. INVIABILIDAD EMPRESARIAL
Las circunstancias objetivas externas aconsejaban prudencia y buenos estudios
de mercado antes de poner en marcha una publicación semanal y más aún antes de
convertirla en diario, sobre todo si las pérdidas empezaban a acumularse. Quizás
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
145
por eso, uno de los accionistas que más se negó a la conversión de semanario en
diario era justamente quien más mentalidad empresarial tenía, Jacques Hachuel,
quien, según Jaime Peñafiel, “se opuso con todas sus fuerzas”17.
De hecho, cuando se cerró El Independiente, al margen de las acusaciones de
los periodistas, el Consejo de Administración, más atento a la cuenta de resultados,
adujo razones económicas18.
En un estudio que hemos realizado sobre 28 números de esta cabecera, sumamos
espacios publicitarios equivalentes a 214,62 de un total de 1.652 planas, lo
que da una media de 7,66 páginas de pago por periódico de 59 (media estadística)
y una cifra de 12,93% de publicidad en cada uno. En los 28 números se incluyen
los tres primeros, los dos del 17 y 24 de junio de 1988, en que se cumplía el primer
aniversario, y los tres últimos del semanario, más los tres primeros del diario y los
correspondientes a días correlativos múltiplos de tres19 de meses sucesivos, desde
el 3-7-1989 al 31 del 10 de 1991.
Exactamente, el estudio está efectuado sobre ejemplares de los días 20-6-1987
(anuncios por espacio de 5,75 de 48 páginas, el 11,98%), 27-06-87 (4,21 de 48
planas, el 8,75% del espacio), 4-7-87 (2,93 de 48, el 6,10%), 18-7-87 (4,63/48, el
9,64%), 19-08-87 (4,38/56, el 7,82%), 17-6-88 (12,53/60, el 20,88), 24-6-88
(24,44/80, el 30,55), 26-5-89 (9,28/48, el 19,33), 2-6-89 (6,25/48, el 13,02), 9-6-
89 (7,5/48, el 15,62), 4-7-89 (18,21/64, el 28,45), 5-7-89 (9,20/48, el 19,17), 6-7-
89 (12,22/48, el 25,46), 3-7-90 (9,22/64, el 14,4), 4-7-90 (6,92/56, el 12,36), 16-
12-90 (6/64, el 9,37), 22-12-90 (4,25/56, el 7,59), 2-1-91 (5,25/48, el 10,94),
4-2-91 (6,65/64, el 10,39), 7-2-91 (3,8/64, el 5,94), 10-4-91 (7,77/64, el 12,14),
13-5-91 (10,82/72, el 15,02), 16-6-91 (5,67/80, el 7,08), 19-7-91 (4,5/56, el 8,03),
22-8-91 (2,77/64, el 4,33), 25-9-91 (3,6/64, el 5,62), 28-10-91 (8,6/72, el 11,94) y
31-10-91 (7,27/72, el 10,09). En conjunto, se inserta en los 28 números seleccionados
publicidad por espacio de 214,62 páginas en un total de 1.652, lo que da una
media de 7,66 páginas por periódico de 59 (media estadística), el 12,93%.
La tendencia no mejoró con el tiempo, ya que la media de las páginas del
semanario analizadas era del 14,37% de sus espacios, mientras que la del diario
baja al 12,13%. Ratifica este dato el alusivo a la media de inserciones publicitarias
a lo largo de toda la trayectoria: 7,66 páginas, el 12,93% de las planas de cada
número, mientras que la del último año baja a 6,07 páginas, el 9,22 del espacio de
cada uno.
La mayor parte de las páginas completas correspondía a marcas de automóviles
y entidades bancarias, grandes sustentadores de los medios de comunicación
españoles, seguidas de un partido político, el CDS, con grandes dificultades financieras,
como se sabe, y de la ONCE, Iberia, etc. Son los anuncios que llegan a los
medios sin necesidad de hacer un gran esfuerzo de captación: En cambio, cuando
hay que atraer anunciantes menos “cautivos”, se nota la pobreza de la cartera de
clientes y el escaso esfuerzo del departamento de publicidad —salvo cuando se
publicó un buen extraordinario sobre autonomías, bien trabajado y bien sostenido
publicitariamente— o sus dificultades para captar anuncios por la escasa aceptación
del soporte.
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
146 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
En cuanto a la denunciada marginación o discriminación oficial, que también
formulaba El Mundo, cuando se consideraba excluido o discriminado respecto a
otros medios, el estudio recoge que en los 28 números aparecen 3 páginas del
Tesoro Público, 2 de Telefónica, 1 de Hacienda, de Instituto Español de Comercio
Exterior, V Centenario de España, Amper, RENFE, Parlamento Europeo, Oferta
Pública de Empleo y anuncios de administraciones no gobernadas por el PSOE.
También de sociedades como Endesa (2 páginas), Iberia (4), Tabacalera (2), etc.
Evidentemente, había publicidad de la administración estatal socialista o de
sociedades con participación estatal, pero en menor número que en otros medios,
como denunciaban los afectados, entre ellos asimismo El Mundo. Ahora bien, no
puede olvidarse, sin embargo, que la tirada de El Independiente era inferior a la de
los grandes medios nacionales, aunque —resulta inevitable la casuística— también
su tarifa.
En consecuencia, todo indica que la escasez de anuncios se debía a cuatro factores
concomitantes: las reducidas ventas, una cierta discriminación gubernamental,
el poco atractivo del periódico y su línea editorial izquierdista.
Cuantificando más, resulta realmente difícil obtener una cifra exacta de ingresos
publicitarios, debido a la existencia de páginas de promoción, inserciones de
clavo o gratuitas, descuentos en unos casos y recargos por emplazamientos en
otros, páginas de breves, etc. Si compensamos unas con otras y homogeneizamos
los anuncios sobre la unidad de página en día laboral -580.000 pesetas o 3.485
euros, frente a las 700.000 de los domingos y frente a las 720.000 pesetas que
resulta de multiplicar por los 40 módulos de una plana el precio de 18.000 pesetas/
módulo- obtendríamos que las 6,07 páginas diarias generarían en 1991 unos
ingresos por publicidad de 3.520.000 pesetas/día de las de entonces, unos 21.155
euros.
Menores incluso resultaban los ingresos por ventas, que calculamos en
3.120.000 pesetas diarias en 1991 (18.751 euros) si aceptamos la cifra de 117.000
lectores proporcionada por el Estudio General de Medios (1986-98) para el citado
año, cifra que, dividiéndola entre tres, permite hablar de una difusión de 39.000
ejemplares. El precio del ejemplar era de 80 pesetas (0,48 euros) desde el 13 de
febrero del año 91.
Sumando ambos capítulos, obtenemos que los ingresos diarios por publicidad
y venta de ejemplares podían ascender a 6.640.000 pesetas (39.907 euros), lo que
vendría a suponer, continuando la extrapolación, unas entradas mensuales de 199
millones de pesetas o 2.410 millones al año (14,48 millones de euros), considerando
los 363 días de aparición. Ingresos, en definitiva, que se quedaban muy cortos,
para mantener una plantilla de 260 trabajadores, bien pagados en general y de
manera especialmente generosa en los casos de los directivos o grandes articulistas,
como Antonio Gala o Camilo José Cela, que cobraba 100.000 pesetas de las de
entonces por artículo. Claro que se trataba de un Nobel y de otro gran escritor cargado
de los mejores premios nacionales; el problema, a tenor de la cifra de ventas,
es que no atraían muchos lectores al periódico.
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
147
Esto explica el montante de pérdidas que fue acumulando la empresa, las sucesivas
ampliaciones de capital, disminución del valor de las acciones y otros números
en el plano inclinado de la gráfica de resultados hacia el cierre.
La empresa Ediobser, cuyo nombre fue registrado pensando en editar El
Observador, aunque se adelantó una empresa catalana y se optó por dar el nombre
de El Independiente a la cabecera, fue una fundación personal de Pablo Sebastián,
con 100.000 pesetas, que, al cabo del tiempo, cuando salió de la dirección y de la
empresa, le reportarían 100 millones de la vieja divisa española. Empezó sus operaciones
el 9 de septiembre de 1986 y cinco meses después ya se produce la primera
ampliación de capital, hasta 250 millones, sentándose en el Consejo de
Administración Luis González Seara, Pablo Sebastián, Jaime Peñafiel y empresarios
y abogados como Carlos García Pardo, Francisco Segrelles, José Osinalde,
Luis Carlos Rodrigo Mazuré y Santiago Muñoz Machado. Pronto figurarían entre
los accionistas, directamente o a través de otras sociedades, Miguel Durán, como
presidente de la Once, Mario Conde, Jacques Hachuel… Algunos de estos accionistas
están encausados en el caso Telecinco, que juzga ahora el Tibunal Supremo.
Las sucesivas pérdidas absorbieron los diferentes aumentos de capital, los más
importantes, según hemos visto en los libros registrales de la sociedad, el de 877
millones del 14-12-1989; 1.810, del 23-2-1990; 635, del 16-04-1991, y 1.429, del
12 del 6 de 1992, con un total desembolsado de 5.753 millones de pesetas, superados
por unas pérdidas que, al cierre del periódico, estaban en 7.566 millones, a los
que todavía se sumaron otros 100 millones esfumados con posterioridad; en total,
7.666 millones de pesetas de las de antes, 46 millones de euros.
La mayor parte de este dinero salió del bolsillo del constructor vasco José
Osinalde y, sobre todo, de las sociedades Divercisa y Uniprex, pertencientes a la
ONCE y que tenían una pasmosa liquidez. A Divercisa le costó El Independiente
2.064 millones de pesetas en acciones, más 1.913 en aval de una deuda contraída
con el Banco Español de Crédito, más otros 10 de una ampliación acordada el 29
de junio de 1992… en total unos 3.978 millones de pesetas, 24 millones de euros.
Divercisa, cuyos movimientos se juzgan en el caso Telecinco, se había inscrito
el 9-9-1986 con un capital de 3 millones de pesetas, que fueron aumentados en 997
el 8-6-1989, en otros 9.000 el 10-12-90, en 2.309 el 31-12-91 y en 15,3 millones el
16-2-2000; pero el 22-12-1996 se consigna una disminución de capital, por pérdidas,
de 12.087 millones de pesetas. Una buena parte de esta cantidad se esfumó en
El Independiente, otra se invirtió en la compra de Telecinco, alguna cantidad debió
de recuperarse tras la venta de la rotativa Albert adquirida por la ONCE, y de otra
quizás se sepa cuando el Tribunal Supremo decida sobre el recurso presentado por
la Abogacía del Estado por el recurso de casación interpuesto tras el fallo de la
Audiencia Nacional de 9-4-2007, que absuelve de delitos fiscales y de falsedad a
los encausados Miguel Durán, Santiago Muñoz Machado, Francisco Javier de la
Rosa Martí, Rafael Álvarez-Bouza Diego, Ángel Medrano Cuesta, Alfredo
Messina, Giovanni Acampara y Juan Carlos López-Cid Fuentes, algunos de ellos
viejos conocidos en los consejos de Administración de Ediobser.
Se trató, por lo tanto, de unas pérdidas cuantiosas, aunque no mayores que las
padecidas por otras empresas informativas en sus inicios y que, no obstante, resul-
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
148 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
taban muy poco significativas en el cómputo de los 300.000 millones de ingresos
por la venta del cupón que se presupuestaban para 1991.
4. ANÁLISIS COMPARATIVO CON LA PUBLICIDAD Y DIFUSIÓN DE
EL MUNDO
Un análisis comparativo de los ingresos publicitarios de El Independiente y los
de El Mundo20, periódico que pugnaba entonces del mismo modo por la aceptación
en los quioscos, muestra la gran diferencia existente entre ambos. Ponderando
los diferentes formatos (40 módulos por página El Independiente y 45, de menor
tamaño, El Mundo), excluyendo las páginas de breves en compensación por las de
clavo, promoción, repeticiones, etc., y comparando las mismas fechas aleatorias
de 199121, el año del cierre, cotejamos que siempre tiene más publicidad El
Mundo y, más aún, que siempre es mejor su relación publicidad por página que la
de El Independiente, realizado, en consecuencia, con mayores costes de papel y
menos ingresos, también con mayores costes de personal, como es sabido, porque
su plantilla era más grande y estaba mejor pagada.
La siguiente tabla, realizada para nuestro libro De las tramas contra El
Independiente a la concentración mediática actual, es suficientemente aclaratoria:
COMPARACIÓN DE LA PUBLICIDAD EL INDEPENDIENTE/EL MUNDO. 1991
Fecha Periódico Págs./Tot. % Periódico Págs./Tot. % Dif. pág. Dif. %
02-01 El Indep. 5,25/48 10,90 El Mundo 8,55/52 16,44 -3,30 -5,54
04-02 El Indep. 6,65/64 10,39 El Mundo 7,40/56 13,21 -0,75 -2,82
07-03 El Indep. 3,80/64 5,94 El Mundo 10,70/56 19,11 -6,90 -13.17
10-04 El Indep. 7,77/64 12,14 El Mundo 9,55/60 15,92 -1,78 -3,78
13-05 El Indep. 10,82/72 15,02 El Mundo 19,87/72 27,60 -9,05 -12,58
16-06 El Indep. 5,78/80 7,08 El Mundo 9,64/72 13,39 -3,86 -6,31
19-07 El Indep. 4,50/56 8,03 El Mundo 9,62/60 16,03 -5,12 -8,00
22-08 El Indep. 2,77/64 4,33 El Mundo 6,08/52 11,69 -3,31 -7,36
25-09 El Indep. 3,60/64 5,62 El Mundo 4,42/68 6,50 -0,82 -0,88
28-10 El Indep. 8,60/72 11,94 El Mundo 15,46/68 22,73 -6,86 -10,79
31-10 El Indep. 7,27/72 10,09 El Mundo 11,20/64 17,05 -3,93 -6,96
Total El Indep. 66,81/720 9,28 El Mundo 112,49/680 16,54 -45,68 -78,19
Medias El Indep. 6,07/65,45 9,22 El Mundo 10,22/61,82 16,53 -4,15 -7,11
Elaboración propia
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
149
La tabla muestra que todos los días el rotativo de Pedo J. inserta más publicidad
que el de Pablo Sebastián y Manuel Soriano, llegando incluso a las 7 y 9 páginas
de diferencia el 7 de marzo y el 13 de mayo de 1991 y, además, con menos
gasto de papel (680 planas El Mundo en los 13 días escogidos aleatoriamente,
frente a las 720 de El Independiente en los mismos días). En cada número, El
Independiente publica una media de 4,15 páginas menos de publicidad que El
Mundo, que, por otra parte, contrata más anuncios de portada, con sus correspondientes
recargos.
El periódico de Ediobser no sólo insertaba menos publicidad que el de Unidad
Editorial, sino que, además, su tarifa era más baja como consecuencia de la menor
difusión, lo que en las páginas de El Mundo se esgrimía como argumento de la
exclusión oficial sin la menor contemplación. En mayo de 1991 El Mundo denunciaba
discriminación por parte del Ministerio de Asuntos Sociales hacia los periódicos
más críticos con el gobierno, recordando que su difusión era de 104.016
ejemplares en el periodo de 5 de noviembre de 1990 a 17 de abril de 1991, cifra
contrastada en la Guía de Medios del mismo año22, y aludiendo a la “escasa difusión
de El Independiente”, cuyos datos no figuraba en la OJD. El Estudio General
de Medios (1968-98) le asignaría después 84.000 lectores en 1990 y 11.7.000 en
1991, cantidades que, divididas entre 3 lectores por ejemplar, permitiría calcular
una difusión de 28.000 y 39.000 ejemplares vendidos, respectivamente. El
Independiente tuvo menos publicidad oficial, pero, en la misma medida, su departamento
correspondiente captó menos publicidad comercial que su principal competidor,
ya fuera debido a una peor gestión o a la mayor dificultad para conseguirla
con menos tirada o ambas causas de la vez.
Por otro lado, la plana publicitaria de El Mundo se vendía en 1991 a 790.000
pesetas, frente a las 580.000 de la de El Independiente. Si en 1991 insertaba, como
hemos visto, una media de 10,22 páginas (4,15 más que el de Ediobser), sus ingresos
diarios se elevaban a 8.073.800 pesetas, 4.553.200 más que el periódico de
nuestro estudio. Si a esto añadimos que sus ingresos por venta de ejemplares
(104.001 por 80 ptas.) se elevaban a 8.320.080 pesetas, obtenemos en este capítulo
una diferencia de 5.200.080 unidades de la antigua moneda. Todo ello arroja una
cifra de 9.753.280 pesetas diarias de diferencia entre los ingresos de las dos cabeceras,
que, multiplicados por los 363 días de publicación al año, eleva a 3.540
millones de pesetas ó 21,28 millones de euros de diferencia de ingresos anual.
Naturalmente y al margen de las tramas y los manejos políticos, es una cantidad
que define la inviabilidad económica de la empresa y explica la diferencia de trayectoria
de dos cabeceras con un inicio semejante en el tiempo y en el contexto.
Contrariamente a la idea de Manuel Soriano explicada en mi libro De las tramas
contra El Independiente a la concentración mediática actual, de que una
empresa periodística nunca cierra por razones económicas, todo parece indicar que
una empresa periodística no cierra, en un sistema democrático, si su cuenta de
resultados es favorable.
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
150 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
5. UN GRAN GRUPO MEDIÁTICO
El Independiente, como indicamos, nació en un contexto de concentración
mediática, surgido en nuestro país con la transición democrática, que se fue acentuando
hasta llegar al estado actual. Era el inicio de un nuevo orden informativo,
por utilizar la terminología del profesor Jesús Timoteo Álvarez23 o nuevo sistema
mundial de comunicación, en terminología utilizada por Enrique Bustamante24.
Ya en 1988, los diez grupos más poderosos en España, que asociaban 28 cabeceras,
controlaban 2.200.481 de los 3.050.000 de ejemplares vendidos diariamente,
el 72 %, mientras que las 85 cabeceras restantes sumaban el 28%. Entre los
grandes holdings mundiales con presencia en medios de comunicación españoles
figuraban ya Bertelsmann, Time-Warner, Fininvest, Hachette, Pearson, Maxwell,
Mondadori…
Junto a ellos, descollaban poderosamente grupos españoles con gran expansión
en los años 90: Prisa (El País, El Siglo, Ser, Canal Plus, Editorial Santillana…),
Anaya (El Sol y un amplio grupo de editoras) Zeta (La Gaceta de los Negocios,
Tiempo, Interviú, Panorama, Telecinco…), Grupo 16 (Diario 16, Cambio 16,
Motor 16…), Prensa Española (Abc), Correo (El Correo Español- El Pueblo
Vasco), Godó (La Vanguardia), Prensa Ibérica (La Nueva España, Heraldo de
Aragón) y, desde noviembre de 1989, Unidad Editorial (El Mundo).
En este contexto, en el que resulta muy difícil competir con los poderosos, la
única salida empresarial para Ediobser era incorporarse a un gran grupo de comunicación,
perdiendo, obviamente, parte de su autonomía e independencia. A punto
estuvo de conseguirlo cuando la Organización Nacional de Ciegos (ONCE), a través
de Divercisa y Uniprex, se hizo con la mayoría de las acciones y dispuesta a
conformar un gran grupo mediático con Onda Cero, Telecinco, Servimedia y otras
publicaciones. Pero un cierto romanticismo trasnochado, el espíritu de independencia
inquebrantable y un afán crítico del que no escapaban la propia ONCE,
unido a las presiones de otros medios de comunicación contra Miguel Durán,
como presidente de la organización, y tal vez a las aludidas tramas de políticos
opuestos a un medio tan contestatario, dieron al traste con el proyecto.
Ciertamente estas fueron las claves.
Ahora bien, aún reconociendo que formar parte de un gran grupo genera sinergias
y apoyos casi decisivos, la historia muestra también en contraste que ni
siquiera eso salva a las publicaciones deficitarias, como sucedió con Claro (del
poderosos grupo alemán Spiegel), El Sol (grupo Anaya), Diario-16 (Grupo 16), Ya
(Edica) y el semanario El Globo (del Grupo Prisa, al igual que Radio El País, que
cerró con poco más de 6 meses de vida y unas pérdidas de 300 millones de pesetas.
De esta forma puede concluirse que fue determinante en el cierre el factor económico
o muy coadyuvante, si valoramos en la misma medida las tramas políticas
y los manejos empresariales.
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
151
6. OTROS FACTORES: ESCASA REPERCUSIÓN, BUENAS PLUMAS,
IZQUIERDISMO…
Pero hay otros aspectos, además del contexto mediático, el económico, las circunstancias
políticas, etc., que no pueden pasar desapercibidos en la historia de
una publicación, como los de su repercusión, corrientes de opinión, posicionamientos,
aportaciones periodísticas y literarias…
Aunque se ha dicho que el periódico era leído en los despachos de los políticos
y empresarios españoles más influyentes y en los ámbitos culturales más progresistas,
como casi todos los rotativos nacionales, lo cierto que su escasa difusión le
restó influencia y no llegó a grandes sectores de la población. Su cierre fue recogido
en casi todas las cabeceras importantes de la época y sus páginas han sido
citadas para explicar movimientos políticos y empresariales o para ilustrar la vida
española de los años 80 y 90.
Así lo hacen, entre otros, los historiadores Alejandro Pizarroso25, Juan
Francisco Fuentes, Javier Fernández Sebastián26, María Luisa Suárez27 y María
Jesús Casals28 … y los periodistas Raúl Heras29, Víctor Márquez Reviriego30,
Pedro Muñoz31, Graciano Palomo32, José Díaz Herrera y Ramón Tijeras33, Pedro
J. Ramírez34, Eric Fratttini35, Pilar Cernuda36, José Antonio Martínez Soler37,
Fernando Jáuregui38, Juan Luis Galiacho39 …
Desde el punto de vista de su aportación al periodismo, la cabecera de
Ediobser y sus mentores pueden presumir de haber hecho una información verdaderamente
independiente y plural, crítica, sin cortapisas, muy orientada a la investigación
y a la denuncia de la corrupción política y del enriquecimiento económico
en la España de la transición democrática.
Sus posicionamientos fueron muy claros en contra de la primera guerra de
Irak, la de 1990, en contra del belicismo, del terrorismo etarra y del terrorismo de
Estado, en contra de cualquier corruptela, de todo lo que supusiera recortes a la
libertad de expresión, etc.
En este sentido deben interpretarse la denuncia de la muerte de la etarra Lucía
Origoitia de un tiro en la nuca; las declaraciones de Pablo Castellano que provocaron
una gran crisis en el PSOE; el asunto de la compra de vestidos, valorados en
varios millones de pesetas y con cargo a los presupuestos del Estado por la entonces
directora general de TVE, Pilar Miró; el dictamen contra la iniciativa de Canal
10; el caso de Monserrat Dexeus, la esposa del ministro Carlos Rmero, acusada de
controlar cuentas de campañas estatales desde una empresa publicitaria…
Otro tanto puede asegurarse en lo que se refiere a su aportación literaria, con
excelentes artículos de Camilo José Cela y Raúl del Pozo, a los que se unían diariamente
los cortos afilados de Antonio Gala —”La Proa” y “La Tronera”—, los
divertimentos de Aurora Pavón (Pablo Sebastián) y Jaime Peñafiel y las grandes
firmas tanto habituales, según las épocas, de González Seara, Abel Hernández,
Andrés Aberasturi, Fernando Jáuregui…, como de colaboradores ocasiones
(Aranguren, Caro Baroja, J.J. Armas Marcelo, Fernando Arrabal, Caballero
Bonald, Antonio Burgos…)
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
152 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
Los primeros y los geniales viñetistas Chumy Chúmez y El Roto, constituyeron
un grupo creador crítico y rebelde, un verdadero colectivo de autores con una
marca de identidad que difícilmente se encuentra en otros periódicos de nuestra
época.
Respecto a sus posicionamientos izquierdistas, a los que aludíamos anteriormente,
remitimos del mismo modo a nuestro estudio de contenidos realizado en el
libro De las tramas contra El Independiente a la concentración mediática
actual40, en el que se pone de manifiesto tanto la rebeldía editorial como las recurrencias
informativas a posicionamientos ubicados a la izquierda del PSOE, nacionalismo
vasco, grupos políticos y sociales minoritarios, algún guiño republicano y
otros posicionamientos alejados de las mayorías sociológicas centristas.
CONCLUSIONES
En definitiva, no se puede achacar a una única causa el cierre de El
Independiente, sino a causas concomitantes, muy convergentes: contexto muy
competitivo, no pertenencia a un gran grupo mediático, grandes pérdidas económicas
(derivadas de su reducida tirada, escasos apoyos publicitarios, elevadas retribuciones
y deficiente gestión), presiones de otros medios, aislamiento político…
Sin duda una de las principales causas objetivas fue la escasa difusión del
periódico, consecuencia a su vez de tres planteamientos erróneos concomitantes:
poco atractiva e incómoda presentación, falta de mercadotecnia y línea editorial
lejana a las preferencias de las mayorías lectoras.
Sin embargo, creemos que fue una gran aventura periodística, que demostró la
dificultad de competir en solitario en el mercado nacional; una interesante experiencia
de libertad de expresión, con un alto coste —aislamiento y cierre—, y una
interesantísima aportación al periodismo español de finales del siglo XX, caracterizada
por sus tendencias críticas, su independencia y sus valores literarios.
BIBLIOGRAFÍA CITADA
AA.VV.
El Independiente, El País, El Mundo, Abc…
AA.VV.:
Guía de Medios de Comunicación de España, nº 108, Madrid, Remarca, 1991.
BUSTAMANTE, Enrique (coord.), Hacia un nuevo sistema mundial de comunicación,
Barcelona, Gedisa, 2003.
CERNUDA, Pilar, y JÁUREGUI, Fernando, Crónicas de la crispación. Una visión personal
del fin del felipismo, Madrid, 1996.
DÍAZ HERRERA, José y TIJERAS, Ramón: El dinero del poder. La trama económica
en la España socialista, Madrid, Cambio 16, 1991.
DÍAZ NOSTY, B, “Crecimiento de la oferta, crecimiento del negocio”, en Informes anuales
de Fundesco. Comunicación social 1989/Tendencias, Madrid, 1989.
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
153
FERNÁNDEZ FERNÁNDEZ, Maximiliano, De las tramas contra El Independiente a
la concentración mediática actual, Madrid, Fragua, 2007.
FRATTINI, Eric, y COLÍAS, Yolanda, Tiburones de la comunicación. Grandes líderes
de los grupos multimedia, Madrid, Pirámide, 1996.
FUENTES, Juan Francisco, y FERNÁNDEZ SEBASTIÁN, Javier, Historia del
Periodismo español, Madrid, Síntesis, 1997
FUNDESCO,
Comunicación Social, 1989 1990, Tendencias.
GALIACHO,J.L., Del cielo al abismo, Barcelona, Nueva República, 2006.
HERAS, Raúl, El Clan. La historia secreta de la beatiful people, Madrid, Temas de hoy,
1990.
JÁUREGUI, Fernando, Cinco horas y toda una vida con Fraga. La historia de un fracaso
admirable, Madrid, Espejo de Tinta, 2004.
MÁRQUEZ REVIRIEGO, Víctor, El desembarco andaluz, Barcelona, Planeta, 1990.
MARTÍNEZ SOLER, José Antonio, Jaque a Polanco. La Guerra digital: un enfrentamiento
en las trincheras de la política, el dinero y la prensa. Madrid, Temas de hoy,
1998.
MONTAÑÉS, F. Montañés, “El decenio de la revolución mediática”, El Mundo, 26-10-
1991, C-3.
MUÑOZ, Pedro, RTVE, La sombra del escándalo, Madrid, Temas de hoy, 1990.
PALOMO, Graciano, El vuelo del halcón, Madrid, Temas de hoy, 1990.
PIZARROSO, Alejandro: De la Gazeta Nueva a Canal Plus. Breve historia de los
medios de comunicación en España, Madrid, 1992.
RAMÍREZ, Pedro J. Y ROBLES, Marta, Pedro J. Ramírez. El Mundo en mis manos,
Barcelona, Grijalbo, 1991.
SANTAMARÍA SUÁREZ, Luisa, El comentario periodístico. Los géneros persuasivos,
Madrid, 1990.
SANTAMARÍA SUÁREZ, Luisa, y CASALS CARRO, María Jesús, La opinión periodística,
argumentos y géneros para la persuasión, Madrid, fragua, 2000
TIMOTEO ÁLVAREZ, Jesús, Del viejo orden informativo, Madrid, Actas, 1997.
NOTAS
1 El País, 29-10-1991, p. 21.
2 “Jacques Hachuel cierra el diario El Independiente”, El País, 31-10-1991, p. 33.
3 “La ONCE vende El Independiente”, en El Mundo, 26-10-1991, C5, y “Los trabajadores piden el
respeto al compromiso del rotativo con las libertades”, El Mundo 27-10-1991.
4 “El Independiente desaparece hoy como diario y El Sol destituye a cuatro de sus altos cargos”, El
Mundo, 31-10-1991, p. 21.
5 “Miguel Durán afirma que abandona El Independiente por presiones externas”, El Independiente,
29-10-1991, p. 22.
6 “La lucha por una cabecera independiente”, EI, 29-10-1991, p. 1.
7 “Comunicado del Comité de empresa”, EI, 29-10-1991, p. 22.
8 “Un tremendo daño”, EI, 29-10-1991, p. 22.
9 “Muere un periódico vivo”, EI, 31-10-1991, p. 1.
Maximiliano Fernández Fernández La desaparación de El Independiente: tramas…
154 Historia y Comunicación Social
2008, 13 139-154
10 “Vamos a seguir”, EI, 29-10-1991, p. 19.
11 “Meye Muelle”, Abc, 9-11-1991, p. 28.
12 PAVÓN, Aurora (Pablo Sebastián), “Abierta está la cancela”, Abc, 14-6-1991, p. 33.
13 DÍAZ NOSTY, B, “Crecimiento de la oferta, crecimiento del negocio”, en Informes anuales de
Fundesco. Comunicación social 1989/Tendencias, Madrid, 1989, p. 23.
14 MONTAÑÉS, F. Montañés, “El decenio de la revolución mediática”, El Mundo, 26-10-1991, C-3.
15 FUNDESCO, Comunicación Social, 1989, Tendencias, p. 23.
16 FUNDESCO, Comunicación Social, 1990, Tendencias, p. 23.
17 “Ya vuelve el español do solía”, EI, 31-10-1991, p. 71.
18 “Cierran El Independiente diario”, EI, 31-10-1991, p. 1.
19 Se empezó el 2 de enero porque el día de Año Nuevo no se publican periódicos, siguiendo el 4, y,
a partir de ahí, múltiplos de 3.
20 Puede verse con más detalle en nuestra obra De las tramas contra El Independiente a la concentración
mediática actual, Madrid, Fragua, 2007, pp. 184-190.
21 Se empieza el 2 de enero porque el 1 no hay periódicos, siguiendo con el 4, y, a partir de ahí, múltiplos
de 3.
22 Guía de Medios de Comunicación de España, nº 108, Madrid, Remarca, 1991.
23 TIMOTEO ÁLVAREZ, Jesús, Del viejo orden informativo, Madrid, Actas, 1997.
24 BUSTAMANTE, Enrique, Hacia un nuevo sistema mundial de información, 2003.
25 PIZARROSO, Alejandro: De la Gazeta Nueva a Canal Plus. Breve historia de los medios de
comunicación en España, Madrid, 1992, p. 210.
26 FUENTES, Juan Francisco, y FERNÁNDEZ SEBASTIÁN, Javier, Historia del Periodismo español,
Madrid, Síntesis, 1997. p. 333.
27 SANTAMARÍA SUÁREZ, Luisa, El comentario periodístico. Los géneros persuasivos, Madrid,
p. 1990.
28 SANTAMARÍA SUÁREZ, Luisa, y CASALS CARRO, María Jesús, La opinión periodística,
argumentos y géneros para la persuasión, Madrid, Fragua, 2000.
29 HERAS, Raúl, El Clan. La historia secreta de la beatiful people, Madrid, Temas de hoy, 1990.
30 MÁRQUEZ REVIRIEGO, Víctor, El desembarco andaluz, Barcelona, Planeta, 1990.
31 MUÑOZ, Pedro, RTVE, La sombra del escándalo, Madrid, Temas de hoy, 1990.
32 PALOMO, Graciano, El vuelo del halcón, Madrid, Temas de hoy, 1990.
33 DÍAZ HERRERA, José y TIJERAS, Ramón: El dinero del poder. La trama económica en la
España socialista, Madrid, Cambio 16, 1991.
34 RAMÍREZ, Pedro J. Y ROBLES, Marta, Pedro J. Ramírez. El Mundo en mis manos, Barcelona,
Grijalbo, 1991.
35 FRATTINI, Eric, y COLÍAS, Yolanda, Tiburones de la comunicación. Grandes líderes de los grupos
multimedia, Madrid, Pirámide, 1996.
36 CERNUDA, Pilar, y JÁUREGUI, Fernando, Crónicas de la crispación. Una visión personal del
fin del felipismo, Madrid, 1996.
37 MARTÍNEZ SOLER, José Antonio, Jaque a Polanco. La Guerra digital: un enfrentamiento en las
trincheras de la política, el dinero y la prensa. Madrid, Temas de hoy, 1998.
38 JÁUREGUI, Fernando, Cinco horas y toda una vida con Fraga. La historia de un fracaso admirable,
Madrid, Espejo de Tinta, 2004.
39 GALIACHO,J.L., Del cielo al abismo, Barcelona, Nueva República, 2006.
40 Ibid, pp. 49-157.
OTRO TEXTO DE INTERES PARA CONOCER, DE MODO CRÍTICO, EL “CASO” del Diario El Independiente y de cómo fue víctima del Poder político de los yuppies socialdemócratas (PSOE) , con Felipe González al mando. https://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/aih/pdf/13/aih_13_4_037.pdf
IMPORTANTE Y MUY ACTUAL Debate crítico en torno al coro n a . Versión en inglés( se puede graduar la velocidad en YT, con algunos trozos de video en alemán.
Documental francés sobre un complot mundial forjado en torno al virus coro na
Algunas claves para analizar la crisis de la pandemia del corona: Clado X1: Un arma biológica para la reducción de la población Por Paul Schreyer
30 de octubre de 2020
https://kenfm.de/clade-x-un-arma-biologica-para-la-reduccion-de-la-poblacion-por-paul-schreyer/
[Paul Schreyer, “Chronik einer angekündigten Krise: wie ein Virus die Welt verändern konnte”, KenFM, 28 de octubre de 2020. <https://kenfm.de/clade-x-eine-biowaffe-zur-bevoelkerungsreduktion-von-paul-schreyer/> y originalmente en multipolar-Magazin, 27 de octubre de 2020 <https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/clade-x>]
Clado X1: Un arma biológica para la reducción de la población | Por Paul Schreyer
En 2018, un pequeño círculo de expertos gubernamentales en Washington ensayó una epidemia causada por un arma biológica, según el guión, provocada por un grupo que quería reducir la población mundial para lograr, así literalmente, “el ‘reseto’ o ‚’cambio de paradigma‘ que sería necesario para cambiar fundamentalmente el equilibrio”.
[Un extracto del libro: Paul Schreyer, “Chronik einer angekündigten Krise: wie ein Virus die Welt verändern konnte” [“Crónica de una crisis anunciada: Cómo un virus pudo cambiar el mundo“], Westend Verlag, Frankfurt/M, Septiembre de 2020.]
Por Paul Schreyer.
Después de que entre 1998 y 2005, en el contexto de la “guerra contra el terrorismo”, habían sido puestos en marcha ejercicios de pandemia cada vez más apocalípticos en un veloz stacatto, disminuyó la frecuencia de los mismos. Poco sucedió durante más de diez años. A partir de 2008, el principal tema mundial de la crisis financiera aparentemente ofreció pocos puntos de partida para maniobras de simulación, como en alguno en torno a un virus de la viruela. E incluso el fiasco de la gripe porcina [H1N1] de 2009 probablemente tuvo que ser digerido primero.2
La situación cambió con el surgimiento de Donald Trump, un evento simbólico del visible declive del sistema mundial liderado por los Estados Unidos. Poco después de su elección como presidente de los Estados Unidos en noviembre de 2016, que inicialmente parecía increíble para muchos observadores y que envió ondas de choque a todo el mundo, la realización de los ejercicios comenzó de nuevo.
En este momento, se intensificaron los esfuerzos de Bill Gates por vincular las cuestiones de las vacunas, la seguridad internacional y el bioterrorismo. En enero de 2017, viajó a la reunión del Foro Económico Mundial en Davos, donde declaró que “es necesario celebrar debates serios sobre cómo prepararse para un posible ataque con armas biológicas”.3Gates anunció que tenía la intención de discutir este tema con mayor profundidad en la Conferencia de Seguridad de Munich en febrero de ese mismo año. La ocasión fue el lanzamiento de la iniciativa de investigación de vacunas CEPI (Coalición para las Innovaciones en Preparación para Epidemias),4 que fundó junto con la industria farmacéutica y varios gobiernos. El objetivo de esta iniciativa era desarrollar vacunas mucho más rápido que antes – en menos de doce meses en lugar de diez años – y asegurar la financiación público-privada para ello.5
En 2017, la Conferencia de Seguridad de Munich, donde Gates apareció subsiguientemente, fue completamente eclipsada por la mudanza de Donald Trump a la Casa Blanca unas semanas atrás. El periódico Frankfurter Allgemenine Zeitung(FAZ) informó de una “peculiar atmósfera en los pasillos y salas traseras” del lugar de la conferencia:
“Rara vez -quizás nunca antes- los rostros de los jefes de Estado, ministros, adláteres y expertos que han viajado hasta allí han estado tan marcados por los signos de interrogación. La creciente incertidumbre, inseguridad y desconfianza preocuparon a los participantes y ensombrecieron todas las discusiones: ¿Dejarán abandonados los americanos a los europeos? ¿La OTAN se está deshilachando? Y sobre todo: ¿qué mantendrá unido a Occidente en el futuro? (…) Es como si más de 20 jefes de gobierno, más de 80 ministros, adlátes y expertos, en resumen la élite de los responsables de la política exterior y de seguridad, se reunieran para lo que probablemente sea la mayor terapia de grupo que este aparato ha experimentado en este siglo. Con un objetivo incierto: averiguar qué terreno común ha quedado – y si todavía apoyan una arquitectura de seguridad occidental.”6
“Me niego a aceptar el colapso de nuestro orden mundial”
Según el FAZ, John McCain, uno de los más influyentes expertos en política exterior de los EE.UU., golpeó “el núcleo de la crisis del alma de Occidente” en su discurso de Munich: la cuestión de si Occidente sobreviviría, dijo McCain, había sido previamente desestimada como un alarmismo – pero ahora era “mortalmente grave”. El conservador de línea dura (que murió un año después) concluyó su discurso, que recibió un estruendoso aplauso de la audiencia reunida de líderes estatales y personal militar, con la concisa confesión: „Me niego a aceptar la caída de nuestro orden mundial.7
Fue en esta conferencia, ante esta misma audiencia, que Bill Gates habló al día siguiente. En él, explicó acerca de los peligros y los posibles detalles de una gran pandemia:
“La próxima epidemia podría estar en la pantalla de la computadora de un terrorista que utiliza la ingeniería genética para crear una versión sintética del virus de la viruela o un virus de la gripe extremadamente contagioso y mortal. (…) Ya sea por un fenómeno de la naturaleza o a manos de un terrorista, los epidemiólogos dicen que un patógeno de rápida propagación en el aire podría matar a más de 30 millones de personas en menos de un año. (…) Debemos prepararnos para las epidemias como los militares se preparan para la guerra. Esto incluye maniobras (“juegos de gérmenes” [“germ games“]) y otros simulacros de emergencia para comprender mejor cómo se propagan las enfermedades, cómo reacciona la gente en caso de pánico, y cómo lidiamos con cosas como las autopistas y los sistemas de comunicación congestionados.”8
Tres meses después, el Centro de Seguridad de la Salud de la Universidad Johns Hopkins comenzó a planificar exhaustivamente para una nueva maniobra pandémica por primera vez en muchos años, incluso más grande y compleja que las anteriores. El título era „Clade X“. Los preparativos comenzaron en mayo de 2017, cuatro meses después de la entrada de Trump en la Casa Blanca.9
El escenario era diferente esta vez: ni plaga, ni ántrax, sino un nuevo tipo de mezcla de virus, que según el guion habría sido desarrollado en el laboratorio de una empresa de biotecnología: una combinación genética de un virus de parainfluenza altamente infeccioso y el virus de Nipah, particularmente mortal. (El virus de Nipah, por cierto, estalló en tiempo real en la India al mismo tiempo que el ejercicio y fue contenido allí con la ayuda de un investigador del ejército de los Estados Unidos que había desarrollado una vacuna cuyas empresas fabricantes recibieron una financiación de 25 millones de dólares después del brote).10
“Acción directa para lograr el ‘reset’“
Lo novedoso del guión del ejercicio no era sólo el tipo de virus, sino también el hecho de que ya no se asumía que había terroristas sin nombre ni biografía, sino que un documento que acompañaba la maniobra describía con sorprendente detalle la historia del grupo terrorista ficticio ABD (“A Brighter Dawn” [“Un Amanecer Más Brillante”]). Ahí decía:
“Un Amanecer Más Brillante“ se formó en los Estados Unidos en la década de 1990. El objetivo declarado del grupo era frenar y eventualmente revertir el decaimiento del planeta causado por la sobrepoblación. En ese momento, el objetivo del ABD era ayudar a la humanidad a volver a un estado anterior. Las actividades del grupo en ese momento eran generalmente pacíficas e incluían conferencias y grupos de discusión, activismo de base y relaciones públicas.
Para 2010, el número de miembros de “Un Amanecer Más Brillante” había crecido considerablemente, tanto en número como en diversidad geográfica. Había miembros y asociaciones locales en muchos países. En esta época, parece haber ocurrido un cisma en “Un Amanecer Más Brillante”. Un grupo extremo del ABD consideró que se necesitaba una acción directa para lograr el “reinicio” o “cambio de paradigma” [“reset or paradigm shift“] que sería necesario para alterar el equilibrio de manera fundamental.
Este grupo escindido estaba formado por no más de 30 personas. Un carismático líder tomó la iniciativa y trabajó estrechamente con otros 25 miembros de ABD del grupo que tenían una educación en ciencias de la vida, incluyendo virólogos. Tras el cisma, el grupo escindido estableció un laboratorio cerca de Zurich, haciéndose pasar por una pequeña empresa de biotecnología de nueva creación. Estableció un sofisticado laboratorio de ciencias de la vida con equipo comercialmente disponible y se centró en el desarrollo de un arma biológica que tuviera un impacto global. Los líderes del ABD también parecen haberse guiado por la idea de una plaga bíblica como un correctivo a los excesos de la humanidad. El grupo escindido fue financiado por sus miembros, donantes privados afines y por su participación en actividades ilegales. (…)
Después de que el patógeno Clade-X se desarrollara y fabricara con éxito, los voluntarios del ABD, que estaban dispuestos a correr el riesgo de infección, viajaron por todo el mundo con pequeñas cantidades del patógeno líquido y propagaron los virus con botellas de spray estándar en lugares públicos concurridos. Los numerosos ataques fueron relativamente ineficaces, ya que casi la mitad de ellos no infectaron a nadie; los demás ataques dieron lugar a que un promedio de sólo 50 personas se enfermaran. Sin embargo, esto fue suficiente para desencadenar la pandemia del Clade X.”11
El ejercicio tuvo lugar en Washington el 15 de mayo de 2018, de nuevo en el lujoso Hotel Mandarin Oriental. El brote ensayado comenzó en Alemania. En el ejercicio fueron simuladas una serie de reuniones del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional de los EE.UU., los jugadores eran de nuevo políticos estadounidenses de alto rango, algunos de los cuales ya habían tenido similares o idénticas funciones gubernamentales y parlamentarias en la realidad.12
De acuerdo con el guión, uno de los primeros eventos después del brote fue el desarrollo de una prueba de PCR para detectar el virus.13 (pdf, p. 11) El debate se centró entonces en gran medida en las restricciones de viaje y el “lockdown” [confinamiento] (entonces llamado “cuarentena”). Se habló del “nivel de violencia para mantener la cuarentena” que podría permitirse.14 (pdf, p. 31) Se llegó a la conclusión de que había que crear más “claridad jurídica…en cuestiones de traspaso de poderes durante la cuarentena”. El gobierno también debería incluir en los planes los posibles efectos negativos de este tipo de cuarentena, “incluida la resistencia pública a su aplicación”.15
150 millones de muertos
En el ejercicio, la crisis se experimentó en cámara rápida. El brote a ser regulado abarcaba un período de muchos meses. Según el escenario, el número de muertes aumentó al final a 150 millones en todo el mundo, incluyendo 15 millones en los Estados Unidos. Según los autores, se trataba de cifras todavía bajas, sólo posibles por el hecho de que la producción de la vacuna había sido extremadamente acelerada.
Por lo tanto, al final del ejercicio, la primera prioridad era pedir al gobierno que proporcionara los fondos necesarios de inmediato para desarrollar nuevas vacunas “en el plazo de meses, no de años”.16 Se mencionaron en particular las nuevas vacunas de ARN (como las promovidas por Bill Gates), que modifican genéticamente a los seres humanos y desempeñan un papel importante en la crisis de Corona.17 Las recomendaciones de los planificadores del ejercicio al gobierno declararon:
“Los recientes avances en la biología sintética (…) abren nuevas oportunidades para el rápido descubrimiento de medicamentos y vacunas eficaces. Del mismo modo, los nuevos enfoques de las contramedidas, como las vacunas de ARNm auto-reforzadas (…) son plataformas prometedoras que permiten un rápido desarrollo en una emergencia. (…) todo esto podría hacerse de forma distribuida para que más gente en más lugares pudiera producir antídotos a gran escala”.18
Con todo, el ejercicio pareció un éxito para los organizadores. Llegaron a la conclusión de que el ejercicio había llegado a un gran público y había aumentado la conciencia de los efectos de las pandemias. El Washington Post había informado sobre el ejercicio tres veces. El Clade X dio lugar a una serie de presentaciones y eventos de seguimiento en el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, la Reunión de Expertos de la Convención sobre Armas Biológicas, el Centro para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades de Estados Unidos (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés)), el Instituto Aspen y otras organizaciones.19
Por lo tanto, el tema volvió a estar en la agenda en varios niveles. (…) Cuando el equipo del Centro Johns Hopkins para la Seguridad de la Salud diseñó posteriormente un ejercicio de seguimiento aún más grande y complejo (“Event 201”), se sumó la principal liga de patrocinadores: la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates y el Foro Económico Mundial (WEF, por sus siglas en inglés). (…) Este ejercicio fue fundamentalmente diferente de los anteriores en el sentido de que esta vez no se trataba de debates y votaciones para ensayar dentro del gobierno, sino explícitamente de capacitar a los gobiernos para colaborar con las corporaciones globales durante una pandemia. En una descripción del Centro Johns Hopkins para la Seguridad de la Salud se dice:20
“En los últimos años, el mundo ha experimentado un número creciente de epidemias, que ascienden a unos 200 eventos anuales. Estos acontecimientos van en aumento y están perturbando la salud, la economía y la sociedad. Hacer frente a estos acontecimientos ya está ejerciendo una presión sobre las capacidades mundiales, incluso en ausencia de una amenaza pandémica. Los expertos están de acuerdo en que es sólo cuestión de tiempo para que una de estas epidemias se convierta en mundial, en una pandemia con consecuencias potencialmente catastróficas. Una pandemia grave que se convierte en el „Evento 201“ requeriría una cooperación fiable entre las industrias, los gobiernos y las principales instituciones internacionales. (…) Similar a los tres ejercicios previos del Centro -Clade X [clado X (2018)], Dark Winter [Invierno Obsucro (2001)] y Atlantic Storm [Tormenta Atlántica (2005)]-21 el Evento 201 tenía como objetivo informar y educar a los altos dirigentes del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, otros gobiernos y corporaciones globales.
El ejercicio Evento 201 tuvo lugar el 18 de octubre de 2019, dos meses antes de que el coronavirus saliera a la luz, y simuló de manera irritante en los hechos el brote de una pandemia mundial de coronavirus.
Este texto es un extracto del libro: Paul Schreyer, Chronik einer angekündigten Krise: Wie ein Virus die Welt verändern konnte [“Crónica de una crisis anunciada – Cómo un virus pudo cambiar el mundo”], Westend Verlag, Frankfurt/M, septiembre 2020, 176 páginas, 15 euros.
*Este artículo fue publicado por primera vez el 27.10.2020 en alemán en el Magazin multipolar. [https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/clade-x]
1 (N. Del T.) El portal Center for Health Security, “Clade X” asume esta definición de “clado”: “Un clado (griego antiguo: κλάδος or klados, significa ‘rama’) es un grupo de organismos que consiste en un ancestro común y todos sus descendientes lineales, representando una sola ‘rama’ en el ‘árbol de la vida'”. Center for Health Security, Website “Clade X”, Resources, Slide Deck, p. 2. <https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/pdfs/Clade-X-exercise-presentation-slides.pdf><
2 Philip Bethge, Katrin Elger, Jens Glüsing, Markus Grill, Veronika Hackenbroch, Jan Puhl, Mathieu von Rohr, Gerald Traufetter, “Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria: The Swine Flu Panic of 2009” [“Reconstrucción de una histeria de masas: el pánico de la gripe porcina de 2009”], Der Spiegel, 12 de marzo de 2010. <https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/reconstruction-of-a-mass-hysteria-the-swine-flu-panic-of-2009-a-682613.html>
3 Alyson Shontell: “Bill Gates warnt vor einer neuen Art Terrorismus: ‘Ihr Zerstörungspotential ist sehr groß’”, Business Insider , 20 de enero de 2017. <https://www.businessinsider.de/wirtschaft/bill-gates-warnt-vor-einer-neuen-art-terrorismus-und-ihr-potenzial-ist-sehr-sehr-gross-2017-1/>
4 [CEPI: Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations] Clive Cookson, Tim Bradshaw: “Davos launch for coalition to prevent epidemics of emerging viruses”, Financial Times, 18 de enero de 2017.
5 Ebd.– cita: “ ‘If we can’t get it under a year we’d be disappointed’, Mr Gates told the FT in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. (…) Targets include six viruses with known potential to cause serious epidemics: Mers, Lassa, Nipah, Ebola, Marburg and Zika. But an equally important part of the programme will be to build the scientific and technological infrastructure for developing vaccines quickly against pathogens that emerge from nowhere to cause a global health crisis, such as Sars in 2002/03 and Zika in 2015/16.”
6 Mathias Müller von Blumencron: “Der Westen in Therapie”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , 18 de febrero de 2017. <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/sicherheitskonferenz/auf-der-sicherheitskonferenz-ist-der-westen-in-therapie-14884618.html>
7 John McCain: “McCain Opening Remarks at Munich Security Conference”, 17 de febrero de 2017. <youtube.com/watch?v=TNeLmjuMtIU>
8 Munich Security Conference 2017: “Speech by Bill Gates at the 53rd Munich Security Conference”, 18 de febrero de 2017. <https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Speeches/2017/05/Bill-Gates-Munich-Security-Conference>
9 Anita Cicero, Crystal Watson, et al.: “Clade X: A Pandemic Exercise”, Health Security , Vol. 17, No. 5, 7 de octubre de 2019, p. 412. <liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/hs.2019.0097>
10 Ben Hirschler: “U.S. biotechs to speed work on Nipah vaccine as virus hits India”, Reuters , 24 de mayo de 2018; <https://de.reuters.com/article/us-india-virus-vaccine/u-s-biotechs-to-speed-work-on-nipah-vaccine-as-virus-hits-india-idUSKCN1IP1KI> Jestin Abraham: “Silently, additional chief secretary Rajeev Sadanandan gained the ammo to take on Nipah”, The New Indian Express , 10 de Junio de 2018. <https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/jun/10/silently-additional-chief-secretary-rajeev-sadanandan-gained-the-ammo-to-take-on-nipah-1826033.html>
11 Center for Health Security, Website “Clade X”, Resources, Background Materials, “Clade X Background: A Brigher Dawn”. <centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/pdfs/Clade-X-A-Brighter-Dawn- Background.pdf>
12 La lista de participantes y los roles que jugaron: como secretario de Estado: John Bellinger, ex asesor jurídico del Departamento de Estado y del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos; como secretario de Defensa: James Talent, ex senador de los Estados Unidos; como Fiscal General: Jamie Gorelick, ex fiscal general adjunto de los Estados Unidos, comisionado de la Comisión del 11 de septiembre; como secretaria de Salud y Servicios Humanos: Margaret (Peggy) Hamburg, ex comisionada de la FDA, ex comisionada del Departamento de Salud e Higiene Mental de la ciudad de Nueva York; como secretaria de Seguridad Nacional: Tara O’Toole, Vicepresidenta Ejecutiva y Senior Fellow, In-Q-Tel, ex Subsecretaria de Ciencia y Tecnología; como director de la CIA: Jeffrey Smith, Ex Consejero General de la CIA; como Líder de la Mayoría del Senado: Tom Daschle, Ex Senador de los EE.UU., Líder de la Mayoría del Senado; como presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes: Susan Brooks, Congresista, Ex Fiscal de los EE.UU. para el Distrito Sur de Indiana; como directora del CDC: Julie Gerberding, exdirectora del CDC.
13 Center for Health Security, Website “Clade X”, Resources, Slide Deck, p. 11. <https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/pdfs/Clade-X-exercise-presentation-slides.pdf>
14 Ebd., p. 31.
15 Anita Cicero, Crystal Watson et al.: “Clade X: A Pandemic Exercise”, Health Security , Vol. 17, No. 5, 7 de octubre de 2019, p. 415. <liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/hs.2019.0097>
16 Ebd., p. 414.
17 Vera Zylka Menhorn, Dustin Grunert: “Genbasierte Impfstoffe: Hoffnungsträger auch zum Schutz vor SARS-CoV-2”, Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Edición 21/2020, 22 de mayo de 2020. <https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/214122/Genbasierte-Impfstoffe-Hoffnungstraeger-auch-zum-Schutz-vor-SARS-CoV-2>
18 Center for Health Security, Website “Clade X”, Resources, Implications of Clade X for National Policy, p. 1.
19 Anita Cicero, Crystal Watson et al.: “Clade X: A Pandemic Exercise”, Health Security , Vol. 17, No. 5, 7 de octubre de 2019, p. 417. <liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/hs.2019.0097>
20 Center for Health Security, Website, Event 201: A Global Pandemic Exercise, About the Exercise. <https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/about>
21 (N. del T.) A la lista podría agregársele el ejercicio “Mercurio Global” [Global Mercury] realizado en septiembre de 2003 por el G-8, el Grupo Asesor de Seguridad de Salud Global [Global Health Security Advisory Group (GHSAG)]. <https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/biological/Preparedness_Plan/Exercise.pdf?__blob=publicationFile> Hoy la Global Health Security Agenda [GHSA por sus siglas en inglés], promueve un enfoque que involucre a “la totalidad de la sociedad” [“whole-of-society approach“] e impida que el mundo caiga en el ciclo de “pánico y después olvidar” [“The world needs to break this ‘panic-then-forget’ cycle“]. Global Health Security Agenda, “Sustainable preparedness for health security and resilience: Adopting a whole-of-society-approach and breaking the ‘panic-then-forget’ cycle”, 1º de octubre de 2020. <https://ghsagenda.org/2020/10/01/sustainable-preparedness-for-health-security-and-resilience-adopting-a-whole-of-society-approach-and-breaking-the-panic-then-forget-cycle/> .
NOTA DE INTROFILOSOFIA: A continuación ponemos un fragmento del libro
CORONA FALSE ALARM? Facts and Figures
AUTORES: Karina Reiss & Sucharit Bhakdi
Defamation and discrediting
When critical voices were heard, immediate action was taken to silence them
by defamation. The lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg was the first to raise
his voice. The defamation campaign that followed was unparalleled.
As soon as we had published our first YouTube videos warning about the
excessive measures and pointed out that Italy might have other aggravating
factors, e.g. the high levels of air pollution), there was the first “facts-check”.
Under the headline “Why Sucharit Bhakdi’s numbers are wrong”, an article
was quickly put into the “ZDF Mediathek”. Nils Metzger supposedly gets to
the bottom if this(239): “Biology professor downplays coronavirus danger”. A
good starting point since the title immediately suggested that we were not
dealing with a medical doctor who had seen countless patients and was a
specialist in infection epidemiology, but with a biologist. And at some point
the classic situation whereby things are put into your mouth that you have
never said – just to discredit you. Metzger: “To present the factor air
pollution as the sole trigger for the crisis – as Sucharit Bhakdi did in his
video – is unscientific.” Naturally it was never once claimed anywhere that
the high number of victims was solely due to air pollution, because that
would indeed have been unscientific. This statement was a blatant lie. But
ARD/ZDF believers would hardly have made the effort to check the “real”
facts. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who think that things must
be true when they are reported by the public broadcasters. Sadly, that is not
the case.
A CONTINUACIÓN EL LIBRO COMPLETO:
CORONA
FALSE ALARM?
Facts and Figures
Karina Reiss & Sucharit Bhakdi
Chelsea Green Publishing
White River Junction, Vermont
London, UK
2
Copyright © 2020 by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Vienna.
Originally published in Germany by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Friedrichstraße 191 • D-10117 Berlin, in
2020 as Corona Fehlalarm?
English translation copyright © 2020 by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Vienna.
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be transmitted or reproduced in any form by any means without permission in
writing from the publisher.
Translated by Monika Wiedmann and Deirdre Anderson
Author photos: Peter Pullkowski/Sucharit Bhakdi; Dagmar Blankenburg/Karina Reiss
Cover design: Alexandra Schepelmann/Donaugrafik.at
Layout and typesetting: Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Vienna
This edition published by Chelsea Green Publishing, 2020.
Printed in the United States of America.
First printing September 2020.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 21 22 23 24
Our Commitment to Green Publishing
Chelsea Green sees publishing as a tool for cultural change and ecological stewardship. We strive to
align our book manufacturing practices with our editorial mission and to reduce the impact of our
business enterprise in the environment. We print our books and catalogs on chlorine-free recycled
paper, using vegetable-based inks whenever possible. This book may cost slightly more because it was
printed on paper that contains recycled fiber, and we hope you’ll agree that it’s worth it. Corona, False
Alarm? was printed on paper supplied by Versa that is made of recycled materials and other controlled
sources.
ISBN 978-1-64502-057-8 (paperback) | ISBN 978-1-64502-058-5 (ebook) | ISBN 978-1-64502-059-2
(audio book)
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020945206
Chelsea Green Publishing
85 North Main Street, Suite 120
White River Junction, Vermont USA
Somerset House
London, UK
3
4
For our sunshine on dark days.
Jonathan Atsadjan
5
Acknowledgements
The authors owe a great debt of gratitude to Monika Wiedmann for the initial
translation from the German and to Deirdre Anderson for critical comments
and valuable suggestions. Our heartfelt thanks to both for professional editing
and proofreading of the final manuscript.
6
Contents
1. Preface
How everything started
Coronaviruses: the basics
China: the dread threat emerges
2. How dangerous is the new “killer” virus?
Compared to conventional coronaviruses
Regarding the number of deaths
How does the new coronavirus compare with influenza viruses?
The situation in Italy, Spain, England and the USA
3. Corona-situation in Germany
The German narrative
The pandemic is declared
Nationwide lockdown
April 2020: no reason to prolong the lockdown
The lockdown is extended
Mandatory masks
Last argument for extension of lockdown: the impending second
wave?
Relaxing the restrictions with the emergency brake applied
4. Too much? Too little? What happened?
Overburdened hospitals
Shortage of ventilators?
Were the measures appropriate?
What did the government do right?
What did the government do wrong?
7
What should our government have done?
5. Collateral damage
Economic consequences
Disruption of medical care
Drugs and suicide
Heart attack and stroke
Other ailments
Further consequences for the elderly
Innocent and vulnerable: our children
Consequences for the world’s poorest
6. Did other countries fare better – Sweden as a role
model?
Are there benefits of lockdown measures?
So which measures would have actually been correct?
7. Is vaccination the universal remedy?
On the question of immunity against COVID-19
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question
Pandemic or no pandemic – the role of the WHO
8. Failure of the public media
Where was truthful information to be found?
Where was the open discussion?
The numbers game
Defamation and discrediting
Censorship of opinions
The German “good citizen” and the failure of politics
Why did our politicians fail?
9. Quo vadis?
10. A farewell
8
11. References
9
1
Preface
The first months of the year 2020 were characterised worldwide by a single
nightmare: Corona. Dreadful images took wing from China, then from Italy,
followed by other countries. Projections on how many countless deaths
would occur were coupled with pictures of panic buying and empty
supermarket shelves. The media in everyday life was driven by Corona,
morning, noon and night for weeks on end. Draconian quarantine measures
were established all over the world. When you stepped outside, you found
yourself in a surreal world – not a soul to be seen, but instead empty streets,
empty cities, empty beaches. Civil rights were restricted as never before since
the end of the Second World War. The collapse of social life and the
economy were generally accepted as being inevitable. Was the country under
threat of such a dreadful danger to justify these measures? Had the benefits
that could possibly be gained by these measures been adequately weighed
against the subsequent collateral damage that might also be expected? Is the
current plan to develop a global vaccination programme realistic and
scientifically sound?
Our original book was written for the public in our country and this
translated version is tilted toward the German narrative. However, global
developments have advanced along similar lines, so that the basic arguments
hold. We have replaced a number of local events in favour of pressing new
issues regarding the question of immunity and the postulated need for
development of vaccines against the virus.
The intent of this book is to provide readers with facts and background
information, so that they will be able to arrive at their own conclusions.
Statements in the book should be regarded as the authors’ opinions that we
submit for your scrutiny. Criticism and dissent are welcome. In scientific
10
discussions, postulation of any thesis should also invite antitheses, so that
finally the synthesis may resolve potential disagreement and enable us to
advance in the interest of mankind. We do not expect all readers to share our
points of view. But we do hope to ignite an open and much needed
discussion, to the benefit of all citizens of this deeply troubled world.
How everything started
In December of 2019, a large number of respiratory illnesses were recorded
in Wuhan, a city with about 10 million inhabitants. The patients were found
to be infected with a novel coronavirus, which was later given the name
SARS-CoV-2. The respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 was
designated COVID-19. In China, the outbreak evolved into an epidemic in
January 2020, rapidly spreading around the globe(1,2,3).
Coronaviruses: the basics
Coronaviruses co-exist with humans and animals worldwide, and
continuously undergo genetic mutation so that countless variants are
generated(4,5). “Normal” coronaviruses are responsible for 10–20% of
respiratory infections and generate symptoms of the common cold. Many
infected individuals remain asymptomatic(6). Others experience mild
symptoms such as unproductive cough, whilst some additionally develop
fever and joint pains. Severe illness occurs mainly in the elderly and can take
a fatal course, particularly in patients with pre-existing illnesses, especially of
heart and lung. Thus, even “harmless” coronaviruses can be associated with
case fatality rates of 8% when they gain entry to nursing homes(7). Still, due
to their marginal clinical significance, costly measures for diagnosing
coronavirus infections are seldom undertaken, searches for antiviral agents
have not been prioritised, and vaccine development has not been subject to
serious discussion.
Only two members of the coronavirus family reached world headlines in
the past.
SARS virus (official name: SARS-CoV) entered the stage in 2003. This
11
variant caused severe respiratory illness with a high fatality rate of
approximately 10%. Fortunately, the virus turned out not to be highly
contagious, and its spread could be contained by conventional isolation
measures. Only 774 deaths were registered worldwide(8,9). Despite this
manageable danger, fear of SARS led to a worldwide economic loss of 40
billion US dollars(8). Coronaviruses subsequently faded into the background.
A new variant, MERS-CoV, emerged in the Middle East in 2012 and caused
life-threatening disease with an even higher fatality rate of more than 30%.
But contagiousness of the virus was also low and the epidemic was rapidly
brought under control(10).
China: the dread threat emerges
When the news came from China that a new coronavirus family member had
appeared on stage, the most pressing question was: would it be harmless like
its “normal” relatives or would it be SARS-like and highly dangerous? Or
worse still: highly dangerous and highly contagious?
First reports and disturbing scenes from China caused the worst to be
feared. The virus spread rapidly and with apparent deadly efficacy. China
resorted to drastic measures. Wuhan and five other cities were encircled by
the army and completely isolated from the outside world.
At the end of the epidemic, official statistics reported about 83,000
infected people and fewer than 5,000 fatalities(11), an infinitesimally small
number in a country with 1.4 billion inhabitants. Either the lockdown worked
or the new virus was not so dangerous after all. Whatever the case, China
became the shining example on how we could overcome SARS-CoV-2.
More disturbing news then came from northern Italy. Striking swiftly, the
virus left countless dead in its wake. Media coverage likened the situation to
“war-like conditions”(12). What was not reported was that in other parts of
Italy, and also in most other countries, the “fatality rate” of COVID-19 was
considerably lower(13,14).
Could it be that the intrinsic deadliness of one and the same virus varied,
depending on the country and region it invaded? Not very likely, it seemed.
12
2
How dangerous is the new “killer”
virus?
Compared to conventional coronaviruses
Gauging the true threat that the virus posed was initially impossible. Right
from the beginning, the media and politicians spread a distorted and
misleading picture based on fundamental flaws in data acquisition and
especially on medically incorrect definitions laid down by the World Health
Organization (WHO). Each positive laboratory test for the virus was to be
reported as a COVID-19 case, irrespective of clinical presentation(15). This
definition represented an unforgiveable breach of a first rule in infectiology:
the necessity to differentiate between “infection” (invasion and multiplication
of an agent in the host) and “infectious disease” (infection with ensuing
illness). COVID-19 is the designation for severe illness that occurs only in
about 10% of infected individuals(16), but because of incorrect designation,
the number of “cases” surged and the virus vaulted to the top of the list of
existential threats to the world.
Another serious mistake was that every deceased person who had tested
positive for the virus entered the official records as a coronavirus victim. This
method of reporting violated all international medical guidelines(17). The
absurdity of giving COVID-19 as the cause of death in a patient who dies of
cancer needs no comment. Correlation does not imply causation. This was
causal fallacy that was destined to drive the world into a catastrophe. Truth
surrounding the virus remained enshrouded in a tangle of rumours, myths and
beliefs.
A French study, published on March 19, brought first light into the
13
darkness(6). Two cohorts of approximately 8,000 patients with respiratory
disease were grouped according to whether they were carrying everyday
coronaviruses or SARS-CoV-2. Deaths in each group were registered over
two months. However, the number of fatalities did not significantly differ in
the two groups and the conclusion followed that the danger of “COVID-19”
was probably overestimated. In a subsequent study, the same team compared
the mortality associated with diagnosis of respiratory viruses during the
colder months of 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 (week 47-week 14) in
southeastern France. Overall, the proportion of respiratory virus-associated
deaths among hospitalised patients was not significantly higher in 2019–2020
than the year before(18). Thus, addition of SARS-CoV-2 to the spectrum of
viral pathogens did not affect overall mortality in patients with respiratory
disease.
Regarding the number of deaths
How can the aforementioned be reconciled with the official reports of the
horrifying number of COVID-19 deaths? Two numbers must be known if the
danger of a virus is to be assessed: the number of infections and the number
of deaths.
How many were infected by the new virus?
Attempts to answer this question were beset by three problems:
1. How reliable was the test for virus detection?
The virus is present in the nasopharynx for approximately two weeks, during
which time it can be detected. How is this done? Viral RNA is transcribed
into DNA and quantified by the so-called polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
The first assay for the new coronavirus was developed under guidance of
Professor Christian Drosten, Head of the Institute for Virology at the Charité
Berlin. This test was used worldwide in the initial months of the outbreak(19).
Tests from other laboratories followed(20).
Diagnostic PCR tests must normally undergo stringent quality assessment
and be approved by regulatory agencies before use. This is important because
14
no laboratory test can ever give 100% correct results. The quality control
requirements were essentially shelved in the case of SARS-CoV-2 because of
declared international urgency. Consequently, nothing was really known
regarding test reliability, specificity and sensitivity. In essence, these
parameters give an indication of how many false-positive or false-negative
results should be expected. The test protocol from the Drosten laboratory
were used worldwide, and test results played a key role in political decisionmaking.
Yet, data interpretation was often largely a matter of belief. What did
Drosten himself say on Twitter(21)?
Sure: Towards the end of the illness the PCR is sometimes positive and sometimes
negative. Here, chance plays a role. When you test a patient twice as negative and
discharge him as cured, it is indeed possible that you can have positive test results
again at home. But this is still far from being a re-infection.
Several physician colleagues have informed us of similar haphazard results
with patients who had been tested repeatedly during their hospitalisation. Is it
particularly surprising that goats and papayas tested positive for the virus in
Tanzania? The criticism by the President of Tanzania regarding the
unreliability of the test kits was of course immediately dismissed by the
WHO(22).
But today it is perfectly clear that the test result is error-prone, as is every
PCR(23,24). How much so, and whether there are significant differences
among the presently available tests, cannot be determined because of lack of
data. So let us assume that the PCR test is incredibly good and produces 99.5%
correct results. That sounds, and would indeed be, exceptional – it means that
one can expect only 0.5% false-positives. Now take the cruise ship “Mein
Schiff 3”. After a crew member had tested positive for the virus, almost 2,900
people from 73 countries were forced into “ship quarantine”. Many had been
on board for nine months. Complaints reached the outside world about the
“prison-like” conditions, psychological problems abounded and nerves were
frayed(25).
Nine positive cases were reported after testing was completed. One person
who tested positive had a cough, the other eight were without symptoms.
Might they have belonged to the 0.5% false-positive cases, as perhaps the
very first case had been? Where were the true-positives that must
15
theoretically have been there? Were they possibly tested as false-negatives or
were all positive tests false?
In the context of false results, we should consider the following: when the
epidemic subsided (in Germany, in mid-April,) PCR testing became a
dangerous source of misinformation because numbers of new cases were
derived from the “background noise” of false-positive results. When all 7,500
employees of the Charité Berlin (one of Europe’s largest university hospitals)
were tested from April 7 to April 21, 0.33% were positive(26). True or false?
When positive test rates drop below a certain limit, it is senseless to
continue mass screening for the virus in non-symptomatic individuals. And
use of numbers acquired under these circumstances as a reason for
implementing any measures should not be tolerated.
2. Selective or representative? Who was tested?
There is only one way to approximate how many people are infected during
an epidemic with an agent that causes high numbers of unnoticed infections:
at sites of an outbreak, the population must be tested as extensively as
possible. But scientists who called for this during the coronavirus
epidemic(27,28) were ignored.
Instead, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German federal government
agency and research institute for disease control, stipulated at the beginning
that only selective testing should be carried out – exactly the opposite of what
should have happened. And as the epidemic ran its course, the RKI stepwise
altered the testing strategy – always in the diametrically wrong direction(29).
At first, only people who had been in a high-risk area and/or had been in
contact with an infected person and also presented with flu-like symptoms
were to be tested. At the end of March, the RKI then changed the
recommended test criteria to: flu-like symptoms and, at the same time,
contact with an infected person. At the beginning of May, the President of the
RKI, Professor Lothar Wieler, announced people with even “the slightest
symptoms” should be tested(29).
The responsibility for translating these dubious decisions into action lay
entirely within the hands of the local health authorities. A co-worker at our
lab was a typical example: the coach of her handball team was coronavirus
positive. The players – all from different administrative districts – were sent
16
home on 14-day quarantine. One player developed symptoms with coughing
and hoarseness and wanted to get tested but was refused on the grounds that
she had no fever. A player from a neighbouring district had no symptoms but
the local health authority ordered a test despite this fact.
This resulted in chaos, caused by the appalling ineptitude of the
authorities from top to bottom. What would have been urgently needed
instead were scientifically sound studies to clarify basic issues of virus
dissemination. As many as possible should have been tested in outbreak
areas. Antibody responses in those that had tested positively could have
subsequently been assessed.
Only a single such study addressing these questions was undertaken in
Germany: the Heinsberg investigation conducted by Professor Hendrik
Streeck, Director of the Institute for Virology at the University of Bonn.
Aware of the importance of the preliminary data, these were presented at a
press conference – where Streeck was torn apart by the disbelieving
media(30,31). The fatality rate was ridiculed as being impossible because it
was ten times lower than what acknowledged experts and the WHO had been
spreading as established facts. After completion of the study, final results
essentially confirming the preliminary report were again presented, and again
deemed by the media to be flawed and inconclusive. But the results of the
study spoke for themselves(32) – and they contradicted the panic propaganda
of the media.
3. The number of conducted tests directly influences infection statistics
A third factor added to the statistical mess. Imagine that you wanted to count
the number of a migratory bird species in a large lake district. There are
hundreds of thousands but your counting device can only count 5,000 per
day. Next day, you ask a colleague to help, and together you arrive at 10,000
counts. The day after that, two more colleagues join in and 20,000 birds are
counted. In short, the higher the testing capacity/number of tests, the higher
the numbers – as long as innumerable unidentified cases abound, as with
SARS-CoV-2(16,32–36). The more tests are performed, the more COVID-19
cases are found during the epidemic. This is the essence of a “laboratorycreated
pandemic”.
Now recall that the test has neither 100% specificity nor 100% sensitivity
17
– meaning that occasionally you would mistake a log for a bird. Therefore,
even after all our birds have long since moved on, you would still “find”
many by just performing a sufficient number of tests.
In conclusion, no reliable data existed regarding the true numbers of
infection at any stage of the epidemic in this country. At the peak of the
epidemic, the official numbers must have been gross underestimates – in the
order of 10 or even more. At its wane at the end of April in Germany, the
numbers must also have been gross overestimates.
Basing any political decisions on official numbers at any stage was
fallacy.
How many deaths did SARS-CoV-2 infections claim?
Here, again, we have the dilemma of definition: what is a “coronavirus
death”?
If I drive to the hospital to be tested and later have a fatal car accident –
just as my positive test results are returned – I become a coronavirus death. If
I am diagnosed positive for coronavirus and jump off the balcony in shock, I
also become a coronavirus death. The same is true for a sudden stroke, etc.
As openly declared by RKI president Wieler, every individual with a positive
test result at the time of death is entered into the statistics. The first
“coronavirus death” in the northernmost state of Germany, Schleswig-
Holstein, occurred in a palliative ward, where a patient with terminal
oesophageal cancer was seeking peace before embarking on his last journey.
A swab was taken just before his demise that was returned positive – after his
death(37). He might equally well have been positive for other viruses such as
rhino-, adeno- or influenza virus – if they had been tested for.
This particular case did not need more testing or a post-mortem to
determine the actual cause of death.
However, with the emergence of a new and possibly dangerous infectious
disease, autopsies should be undertaken in cases of doubt to clarify the actual
cause of death. Only one pathologist ventured to fulfil this task in Germany.
Against the specific advice of the RKI, Professor Klaus Püschel, Director of
the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Hamburg University, performed autopsies
on all “coronavirus victims” and found that not one had been healthy(38).
Most had suffered from several pre-existing conditions. One in two suffered
18
from coronary heart disease. Other frequent ailments were hypertension,
atherosclerosis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, lung and kidney disease and liver
cirrhosis(39).
The same occurred elsewhere. Swiss pathologist Professor Alexander
Tzankov reported that many victims had suffered from hypertension, most
were overweight, two thirds had heart problems and one third had
diabetes(40). The Italian Ministry of Health reported that 96% of COVID-19
hospital deaths had been patients with at least one severe underlying illness.
Almost 50% had three or more pre-existing conditions(41).
Interestingly, Püschel found lung embolisms in every third patient(39).
Pulmonary embolisms usually arise through detachment of blood clots in
deep veins of the leg that are swept into the lungs. Clots typically form when
blood flow sags in the legs, as when the elderly spend the day seated and
inactive. A high frequency of lung embolisms was already described in
deceased influenza patients 50 years ago(42). Thus, we are not on the verge of
discovering a unique property of SARS-Cov-2 that would heighten its threat,
but we do bear witness to the absurd situation where the elderly seek to
protect themselves by obeying the chant that sounds around the world: “Stay
at home”. Physical inactivity is pre-programmed, thromboses included?
Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke recommended exactly the
opposite: As much fresh air and activity as possible. The man knows his job!
The number of genuine COVID-19 fatalities remained unknown outside
Hamburg. The situation was no better in other countries. Professor Walter
Riccardi, adviser to the Italian Ministry of Health, stated in a March interview
with “The Telegraph” that 88% of the Italian “coronavirus deaths” had not
been due to the virus(43).
The problem with coronavirus death counts is such that the numbers can
be viewed as nothing other than gross overestimates(44). In Belgium, not only
fatalities with a positive COVID-19 test entered the ranks but also those
where COVID-19 was simply suspected(45).
Scientific competence did not seem to rule the agenda of Germany’s RKI.
Fortunately, there are scientists who stand out in contrast. Stanford Professor
John Ioannidis is one of the eminent epidemiologists of our times. When it
became clear that the epidemic in Europe was nearing its end, he showed
how the officially reported numbers of “coronavirus deaths” could be used to
19
calculate the absolute risk of dying from COVID-19(46).
The risk for a person under 65 years in Germany was about as high as a
daily drive of 24 kilometres. The risk was low even for the elderly ≥ 80 with
10 “coronavirus deaths” per 10,000 ≥ 80-year olds in Germany (column at
the far right).
Calculation of this number is simple. About 8.5 million citizens are ≥ 80
years in Germany. About 8,500 “coronavirus deaths” were recorded in this
age group. This leads to an absolute risk of coronavirus death of 10 per
10,000 ≥ 80 year-olds. Now realise that every year about 1,200 of 10,000 ≥
80-year olds die in Germany (black column, data from the Federal Office of
Statistics). Nearly half of them due to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), almost
a third from cancer and around 10% (over 100) owing to respiratory
infections. The latter have always been caused by a multitude of pathogens
including the coronavirus family. It is obvious that a new member has now
joined the club, and that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be assigned any special role as
a “killer virus”.
This is underlined by another observation. Severe respiratory infections
are registered by the RKI in the context of influenza surveillance. The
vertical line marks the time when documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infections
was started. Was there ever any indication for an increase in the number of
respiratory infections(47)? No, the 2019/20 winter peak is followed by typical
seasonal decline. And note that the lockdown (red arrow) was implemented
when the curve had almost reached base level.
20
Source: Homepage RKI (Fig. 1), https://grippeweb.rki.de/
How does the new coronavirus compare with influenza
viruses?
The WHO warned the world that the COVID-19 virus was much more
infectious, that the illness could take a very serious course, and that no
vaccine or medication was available.
The WHO abstained from explaining that truly effective medication
hardly exists against any viral disease and that vaccination against seasonal
flu is increasingly recognised as being ineffective or even counterproductive.
Furthermore, the WHO disregarded two points that needed to first be
addressed before any valid comparison of the viruses could be undertaken.
How many people die of COVID-19 compared with influenza?
The WHO claimed that 3–4% of COVID-19 patients would die, which by far
exceeded the fatality rate of annual influenza(48).
This is important enough to call for a closer look. Influenza viruses pass
wave-like through the population. The waves can be small in one year and
21
high in another. Case fatality rates are 0.1% to 0.2% during a normal flu
season in Germany(49), which translates to several hundreds of deaths. In
contrast, there were approximately 30,000 influenza-related deaths in the
1995/1996 season(50) and approximately 15,000 deaths in 2002/2003 and
2004/2005.
The RKI estimates that the last great flu epidemic of 2017/2018 claimed
25,000 lives(51). With 330,000 reported cases, the fatality rate would be ~8%
(52). As in all previous years, Germany weathered this epidemic without
implementing any unusual measures.
The WHO estimates that there are 290,000–650,000 flu deaths each
year(53).
Now turn to COVID-19. In May, the RKI calculated that 170,000
infections with 7,000 coronavirus deaths equals a 4% case fatality rate – as
predicted by the WHO! Conclusion: COVID-19 is really ten times more
dangerous than seasonal flu(54).
However, the number of infections was at least ten times higher because
most mild and asymptomatic cases had not been sought and detected(55–59).
This would bring us to a much more realistic fatality rate of 0.4%. Moreover,
the number of “true” COVID-19 deaths was lower because many or most had
died of causes other than the virus. Further correction of the number brings us
to a rough estimate of 0.1% – 0.3%, which is in the range of moderate flu.
This tallies well with the results of Professor Streeck, who arrived at an
estimate of 0.24% – 0.26% based on the data of his Heinsberg study. The
average age of the deceased who tested positive was around 81 years(32).
The conclusion that COVID-19 is comparable to seasonal flu has been
reached by many investigators in other countries. In an analysis of several
studies, Ioannidis showed that, contingent on local factors and statistical
methodology, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27%(60). Many other
investigators arrived at similar conclusions. All studies to date thus clearly
show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a real “killer virus”(61–71).
Flu and COVID-19: who are the vulnerable?
Influenza viruses are dangerous mainly to individuals of ≥ 60 years but can
sometimes also cause fatal infections in younger people.
22
A salient feature of the virus is that after its multiplication and release, it
induces the infected host cell to commit suicide. This is a major predisposing
factor for bacterial super-infections(72), which were the major cause of death
during the Spanish flu.
In contrast, coronaviruses are inherently less destructive. Patients show
characteristic changes in their lungs, but whether the virus is deadly or not
depends less on the virus and more on the patient’s overall state of health.
Time and again, press reports appear on “completely healthy” young people
who nonetheless were carried off by the virus. We do not know of a single
case where it did not turn out afterwards that the person had not been
“completely healthy”, but rather had suffered for years from hypertension,
diabetes or other illnesses that had gone undetected.
Sensational news: 103 year-old Italian woman recovers from COVID-
19(73)! In fact, she was not the only old lady who survived the infection
without problems. Most actually did(74). The record is held by a 113 year-old
Spanish woman(75).
Although the median age of the deceased is over 80 in Germany and other
countries(41,76–78), age per se is not the decisive criterion. People without
severe pre-existing illness need fear the virus no more than young people. As
we know from Püschel’s and many other reports, SARS-CoV-2 is almost
always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. While this is certainly sad
for the family and loved ones, it is still no reason to assign the virus any
heightened role. We need to keep in mind that every year, millions die of
respiratory tract infections, with a whole spectrum of bacterial and viral
agents playing causal roles.
One must not forget that the true cause of a death is the disease or
condition that triggers the lethal chain of events. If someone suffering from
severe emphysema or end-stage cancer contacts fatal pneumonia, the cause of
death is still emphysema or cancer(79,80).
This basic rule is simply ignored in times of coronavirus. Even worse –
once tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, (even falsely) – an individual can
remain marked as a COVID-19 victim for life, depending on the inclination
of the responsible authority(81,82). Then, irrespective of when and why death
occurs, he or she will enter the COVID-19 death register.
Thus, the number of coronavirus deaths will continue to soar incessantly.
23
Fear in the general populace is further fuelled by reports that SARS-CoV-2 is
much more dangerous than the flu because it attacks many different organs
with probable long-term consequences. Newspaper reports and publications
abound that the virus can be found in the heart, liver, and kidneys(83). It may
even find its way to our central nervous system?!
Such headlines sound terrifying. However, obtaining positive RT-PCR
results for SARS-CoV-2 in organs other than the lung is nothing surprising.
The virus uses receptors to enter our cells that are not only on the surface of
lung cells. But two issues are of decisive importance: the actual viral load and
the question of whether the viruses cause any damage. The highest SARSCoV-
2 concentrations have been found in the lungs of patients – as is to be
expected. Traces of the virus have been detected in other organs(83). Most
probably, they bear no relevance. Until scientific evidence to the contrary is
available, the findings must be left for what they are: trivial observations.
Is there a difference with the flu? No. It has been known for years that
influenza can affect the heart and other organs(84,85). All respiratory viruses
can find their way to the central nervous system(86). There is no basic
difference with SARS-CoV-2. Once in a while, patients may suffer from
long-term consequences. This applies to all viral diseases, and they are
exceptions. It is the exception that proves the rule.
What do we learn from all of this? COVID-19 is a disease that makes
some people sick, proves fatal to a few, and does nothing to the rest. Like any
annual flu.
Of course, it was always necessary to take special care not to bring these
agents to elderly persons with pre-existing illnesses. When you feel unwell,
refrain from visiting grandma and grandpa, especially if they are suffering
from a heart condition or lung disease. And whoever has the flu will stay at
home anyway. That is how everything has been and how everything should
continue.
The fact that SARS-CoV-2 does not constitute a public danger and that
the infection often runs its course without symptoms might have one
disadvantage. Perhaps asymptomatic people are contagious and unknowingly
pass the virus on to others. This fear originated from a publication coauthored
and widely publicised by Drosten, in which it was reported that the
Chinese businesswoman who infected an automotive supplier’s staff member
24
during a visit to Bavaria displayed no symptoms herself(87). This publication
caused a worldwide sensation with expected effects, for a deadly virus that
could be transmitted by healthy individuals was akin to a swift and invisible
killer. This fear became the driving force behind many extreme preventive
measures – from visiting bans for hospitalised patients all the way to
obligatory mask-wearing.
In the midst of general panic, a very important fact escaped general
attention. The major statement of the publication turned out to be false. A
follow-up inquiry revealed that the Chinese woman had been ill during her
stay in Germany and was under medication to relieve pain and reduce
fever(88). This was not mentioned in the publication(87).
Another study that was published in April by the Drosten laboratory also
came under international criticism. It concerned the question about the role of
children in disease transmission. According to the Drosten study,
asymptomatic children were just as contagious as adults. This message
caused great concern to the general public and influenced subsequent
decisions by the government. In fact, no studies exist to indicate that children
play any significant role as vectors for transmission of this disease.
Be that as it may, there was no reason for completely pointless measures
like closing schools and day care centres, which are known to do nothing to
protect the high-risk groups(89). And no reason whatsoever to drive social life
and the economy against the wall.
What is wrong with Germany – and this whole world?
Well, all the pictures disseminated so effectively by the international
media – from Italy, Spain, England and then even from New York – coupled
with model calculations for hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions
of deaths – planted the firm conviction in the general populace: It simply
HAS TO BE a killer virus!
The situation in Italy, Spain, England and the USA
Since the end of March, one sensation outdid the next: Italy had the most
deaths, the fatality rate shocked us to the core; Spain surpassed Italy (in the
number of infections); the United Kingdom broke the sad European record,
exceeded only by the US. The press delighted in spreading as much terrifying
25
news as humanly possible.
But let us reflect a little. The impact of an epidemic is dependent not only
on the intrinsic properties and deadliness of the pathogen but also to a very
significant extent on how “fertile” the soil is on which it lands. All reliable
figures tell us we are not dealing with a killer virus that will sweep away
mankind. So what did happen in those countries from which these dreadful
pictures emerged?
Detailed answers to this question must be sought on the ground.
Nevertheless, several facts are sufficiently known to warrant mention here.
Problems surrounding coronavirus statistics went totally rampant in Italy and
Spain. Elsewhere, testing for the virus was generally performed on people
with flu-like symptoms and a certain risk of exposure to the virus. At the
height of the epidemic in Italy, testing was restricted to severely ill patients
upon their admission to the hospital. Illogically, testing was widely
performed post-mortem on deceased patients. This resulted in falsely elevated
case fatality rates combined with massive underestimates of actual
infections(90).
As early as mid-March, the Italian GIMBE (Gruppo Italiano per la
Medicina Basata Sulle Evidenze / Italian Evidence-Based Medicine Group)
foundation stated that the “degree of severity and lethality rate are largely
overestimated, while the lethality rates in Lombardy and the Emilia-
Romagna region were largely due to overwhelmed hospitals”(91).
The fact that no distinction was made between “death by” and “death
with” coronavirus rendered the situation hopeless. Almost 96% of “COVID-
19 deaths” in Italian hospitals were patients with pre-existing illnesses. Three
quarters suffered from hypertension, more than a third from diabetes. Every
third person had a heart condition. As almost everywhere else, the average
age was above 80 years. The few people under 50 who died also had severe
underlying conditions(41).
The inaccurate method of reporting “coronavirus deaths” naturally spread
fear and panic, rendering the general public willing to accept the irrational
and excessive preventive measures installed by governments. These turned
out to have a paradoxical effect. The number of regular deaths increased
substantially over the number of “coronavirus deaths”. The Times reported
on April 15: England and Wales have experienced a record number of deaths
26
in a single week, with 6,000 more than average for this time of year. Only
half of those extra numbers could perhaps be attributed to the coronavirus(92).
There was a well-founded concern that the lockdown may have unintentional
but serious consequences for the public’s health(93).
It became increasingly clear that people avoided hospitals even when
faced with life-threatening events such as heart attacks because they were
afraid of catching the deadly virus. Patients with diabetes or hypertension
were no longer properly treated, tumour patients not adequately tended to.
The UK has always had massive problems with its health care system,
medical infrastructure and a shortage of medical personnel(94,95). Due to
Brexit, the UK also lacks urgently needed foreign specialists(96).
Many other countries have problems along the same lines. When the
influenza epidemic swept over the world in the winter of 2017/2018,
hospitals in the US were overwhelmed, triage tents were erected, operations
were cancelled and patients were sent home. Alabama declared a state of
emergency(97–99). The situation was little different in Spain, where hospitals
just collapsed(100,101), and in Italy, where intensive care units in large cities
ground to a halt(102).
The Italian health care system has been downsizing for years, the number
of intensive care beds is much lower than in other European countries.
Furthermore, Italy has the highest number of deaths from hospital-acquired
infections and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in all of Europe(103).
Also, Italian society is one of the oldest worldwide. Italy has the highest
proportion of over 65 year-olds (22.8%) in the European Union(104). Add to
that the fact that there is a large number of people with chronic lung and heart
disease, and we have a much greater number in the “high-risk groups” as
compared to other countries. In sum, many independent factors come
together to create a special case for Italy(105,106).
Since northern Italy was particularly affected, it would be interesting to
ask if environmental factors had an influence on the way things developed
there. Northern Italy has been dubbed the China of Europe with regard to its
fine particulate pollution(107). According to a WHO estimate, this caused over
8,000 additional deaths (without a virus) in Italy’s 13 biggest cities in
2006(108). Air pollution increases the risk of viral pulmonary disease in the
27
very young and the elderly(109). Obviously, this factor could generally play a
role in accentuating the severity of pulmonary infections(110).
Suspicions have been voiced that vaccination against various pathogens
such as flu, meningococci and pneumococci can worsen the course of
COVID-19. Investigations into this possibility are called for because Italy
indeed stands out with its officially imposed extensive vaccination
programme for the entire population.
Yet despite all these facts, the only pictures that remain imprinted on our
minds are the shocking scenes of long convoys of military vehicles carting
away endless numbers of coffins from the northern Italian town of Bergamo.
Vice chairman of the Federal Association of German Undertakers, Ralf
Michal, noted(111): in Italy, cremations are rather rare. That is why
undertakers were overburdened when the government ordered cremations in
the course of the coronavirus pandemic. The undertakers were not prepared
for that. There were not enough crematoriums and the complete infrastructure
was lacking. That is why the military had to help out. And this explains the
pictures from Bergamo. Not only was there no infrastructure, there was also a
shortage of undertakers because so many were in quarantine.
And finally, let us examine the United States, where only parts of the
country were severely affected. In states like Wyoming, Montana or West
Virginia, the number of “coronavirus deaths” was a two-digit figure
(Worldometers, middle of May, 2020).
The situation in New York was different. Here, doctors were
overwhelmed and did not know which patients to treat first, while in other
states, hospitals were eerily empty. New York was the centre of the epidemic,
where more than half of the COVID-19 deaths nationwide occurred (date:
May 2020). Most of the deceased lived in the Bronx. An emergency doctor
reported(112): “These people come way too late, but their reasoning is
understandable. They are afraid of being discovered. Most of them are illegal
immigrants without residence permits, without jobs and without any health
insurance. The highest mortality rate is recorded in this group of people”.
It would be of interest to learn how they were treated. Were they given
high doses of chloroquine as recommended by the WHO? About a third of
the Hispanic population carries a gene defect (glucose-6-phosphate
dehydrogenase) that causes chloroquine intolerance with effects that can be
28
lethal(113,114). More than half of the population in the Bronx is Hispanic.
Countries and regions can differ so widely with respect to a myriad of
factors that a true understanding of any epidemic situation cannot be obtained
without critical analysis of these determinants.
29
3
Corona-situation in Germany
The German populace should have been reassured that this country was wellpositioned
and that disturbing scenarios similar to those seen in northern Italy
or elsewhere need NOT be feared. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The
RKI issued warning after warning, and the government embarked on a
crusade of fear-mongering that defied description. Anyone who dared to
challenge the warning that the world was facing the greatest pandemic threat
of all times was defamed and censored.
The indicators for when which measures were supposedly necessary or no
longer necessary changed haphazardly according to demand. At the
beginning of March, it was the doubling rate for the numbers of infections
which at first should exceed 10 days; but when this “goal” was reached, the
rate had to be further slowed to 14 days. This objective was also quickly
achieved so a new criterion had to be issued: the reproduction factor (“R”),
which supposedly told us how many people became infected by one
contagious person. The authorities at first decided that this number must
decrease to less than 1. When this happened – in mid-March – they ran into
difficulties and set out to re-direct the number upward by increasing the
numbers of tests. At the end of May, a bit of creative thinking led to the idea
of defining a critical upper limit to the acceptable number of daily new
infections: 35 per 100,000 citizens in any town or region.
Now reflect that performing just 7,000 tests can be expected to generate at
least 35 false-positive results in total absence of the virus! Obviously, no
scientifically sound reasoning underlay any of the plans and measures
dictated by the authorities. It cannot be emphasised enough that infection
numbers are of no significance if one is not dealing with a truly dangerous
virus. Money and means should not be wasted on counting the number of
30
common colds every winter!
Arbitrariness and the lack of a plan wound their way through the
measures. At the beginning, facial masks were scorned and not used, even in
overcrowded buses. But when the epidemic was over, it became mandatory.
DIY stores could stay open for business while electronics markets had to
close. Jogging was OK, playing tennis taboo. Every state had its own
catalogue of fines; there had to be punishment since we were dealing with an
“epidemic of national concern”. But where was the logic behind all of these
measures? A closer look may help explain what had happened.
The German narrative
Late in the evening of January 27, 2020, the Bavarian Ministry of Health
announced Germany’s first coronavirus case, an employee of an automotive
supplier. A Chinese businesswoman had been on a visit there one week
earlier. The virus was subsequently detected in several other members of the
company. Most had no symptoms, none was seriously ill. All were isolated
and put in a 14-day quarantine. From then on, anyone returning from a “high
risk” area, be it China or Tyrol, was tested and put in quarantine. A few
scattered numbers of healthy “cases” were thereby discovered.
Then came carnival season in Germany and the western German state of
North Rhine-Westphalia is one of its centres where there is no holding back.
The first coronavirus patient here had partied in the middle of February
together with his wife and 300 other merry carnival revellers in the district of
Heinsberg. What happened next sounded the national alarm: coronavirus
outbreak in Heinsberg; many patients critically ill; local hospital
overwhelmed! Schools and day care centres were closed and all contact
persons put in quarantine. At the beginning of March, the Minister of Health,
Jens Spahn, still urged prudence. Mass events were cancelled, otherwise
overall calmness reigned.
But on March 9, alarm bells rang. The first coronavirus fatalities in
Germany occurred. A 78-year old man from the Heinsberg district and an 82-
year old woman from Essen succumbed to the virus. The man had a
multitude of pre-existing illnesses, among them diabetes and heart disease,
the woman died from pneumonia. Drosten warned against a threatening
31
coronavirus wave(115): “Autumn will be a critical time, that is obvious. At
that time, I expect a rapid increase of coronavirus cases with dire
consequences and many deaths…Who do we want to save then, a severely ill
80 year-old or a 35 year-old with raging viral pneumonia who would
normally die within hours, but would be over the worst after three days on a
ventilator?”.
The pandemic is declared
On March 11, the WHO declared the pandemic. The very next day, German
governors of state voted to cancel all mass gatherings. On the same day, a
report from France: all day care centres, schools, colleges and universities
have been closed until further notice. Germany followed suit: one day later,
the German states ordered all schools and day care centres closed from March
16. There was talk of a “tsunami” in the wake of which countless lives would
be claimed unless we managed to “flatten the curve”. All of a sudden,
everyone had a voice and an opinion, no matter whether astrophysicist or
trainee journalists, and no matter whether they had not an inkling of
knowledge about infectious diseases. Projections were presented every day,
exponential growth was explained to us on every channel, showing us how
difficult it is to grasp or to even stop this development because the rate of
infection seemed to double weekly. Without strict measures we would have
one million infections by mid-May. According to RKI President Wieler, the
number of fatalities in Germany would soar up and approach Italian numbers
within just a few weeks(116).
For the first time, there was mention of a possible lockdown. On March
14, the Federal Ministry of Health tweeted(117):
Attention FAKE NEWS!
It is claimed and rapidly being distributed that the Federal Ministry of Health/Federal
government will soon announce further massive restrictions to public life. This is
NOT true!
Two days later, on March 16, further massive restrictions to public life were
announced(118).
Public life was rapidly shut down. Clubs, museums, trade fairs, cinemas,
32
zoos, everything had to be closed. Religious services were prohibited,
playgrounds and sports facilities fenced off. Elective surgery would be
postponed. The primary goal: the health care system must not be
overwhelmed.
While alarmism was expanding here in Germany, someone else raised his
voice. Someone who really knows what he is doing and whom we have heard
of several times before, Professor John Ioannidis. Here is a summary of his
article “A fiasco in the making?”(119):
The current coronavirus disease, COVID-19, has been called a once-in-acentury
pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco. We
lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARSCoV-
2. Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries.
During long-lasting lockdowns, how can policymakers tell if they are doing
more good than harm? The data collected so far on how many people are
infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the
limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of
infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are
failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. No countries have
reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random
sample of the general population. Reported case fatality rates, like the
official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror – and
are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are
disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. The one
situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond
Princess cruise ship and its quarantined passengers. The case fatality rate
there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death
rate from COVID-19 is much higher. Adding to these extra sources of
uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general
U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%. If that is the true rate, locking down
the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may
be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat.
Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a
cliff and dies. Could the COVID-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some
say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called
mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades
33
can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in
nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of
people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalised in the
U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter. If we had not known about
a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the
number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem
unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season
seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been
less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams. One of
the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures
and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the
economy, society, and mental health.
Regrettably, this voice of reason remained unheard by our politicians and
their advisers. Instead, the prediction ventured by Professor Neil Ferguson,
Imperial College London, made the headlines: if nothing is done and the
virus allowed to spread uncontrolled, more than 500,000 people will die in
the UK and 2 million in the US(120). Not only did this make the rounds, it
struck fear into hearts and souls.
Incidentally, Ferguson is the same authority who predicted 136,000 deaths
due to mad cow disease (BSE), 200 million deaths due to avian flu and
65,000 deaths during the swine flu – in all cases there were ultimately a few
hundred(121). In other words, he was wrong every time. Do journalists
actually have a conscience and, if so, why do they not check the facts before
distributing their news? Naturally, here too it later became apparent that
Ferguson’s prediction was totally wrong. But this was never reported by the
media.
For the RKI, the headlines seemed to be just the right thing. It warned of
an exponential increase(122): “With this exponential growth, the world will
have 10 million infections within 100 days if we do not succeed in curbing
the number of new infections”. Model calculations were published that
predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths in Germany(123).
Politicians entered a race for voter popularity – who could profit the
most? Markus Söder, State President of Bavaria, presented himself as
“Action Man”, emanating force and determination in front of the cameras,
and declaring his intent to fight the virus to the finish with all the means at
34
his disposal. Söder surges ahead with the first draconian measures: stay-athome
order for Bavarians as of March 21. No visits to loved ones in
hospitals. No church services. Shops and restaurants closed. Among other
incredible measures.
Nationwide lockdown
What impression would it make on the world if each federal state in Germany
had its own rules? So the measures were hastily emulated throughout the
nation. The “stay-at-home command” sounded too negative, so we were
presented with a “lockdown” on March 23 in the guise of a “nine-point plan”.
This meant nationwide confinement orders. A far-reaching contact ban was
imposed, congregations of more than 2 people in public were forbidden.
Restaurants, hair dressers, beauty parlours, massage practices, tattoo studios
and similar businesses had to close. Violations of these contact bans were to
be monitored by a regulatory agency and failure to comply was to be
sanctioned. Penalty catalogues were hastily patched together. Some states
went to extremes. Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, the Saarland, Saxony and
Saxony-Anhalt enacted decrees that allowed leaving homes and entering
public spaces only with a “valid” reason. At the same time, hospitals were so
empty that they were able to accommodate patients from Italy and
France(124).
On March 25, the German parliament announced an “epidemic situation
of national concern”, so that two days later the hurriedly compiled new “law
to protect the population during an epidemic situation of national concern”
could be implemented – largely unnoticed by the general population. It
empowered the Federal Ministry of Health to determine, by decree, a series
of measures that violate the first article of the German constitution: Human
dignity is inviolable.
These political decisions were made in the absence of any evidence that
might have justified them. It was for that reason that we decided to write an
open letter to Chancellor Merkel(28) in which questions of fundamental
importance were raised. The intent was to give the government the chance to
turn back from the wrong track with dignity. But our opinions, and those of
many others who did not agree with the government line, were ignored and
35
dissenting voices were discredited in newspapers and the media. It goes
without saying that we never received an answer.
Instead, at the end of March, it was officially proclaimed that the virus
was still spreading too fast. Case numbers doubled every 5 days. The goal
must be to flatten the curve so the doubling time is extended to 10 days. Only
thus would we prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed(125).
The contents of an internal document of the German Ministry of the
Interior (GMI) were then released to the public. There one learned that the
worst-case scenario forecast 1.15 million fatalities if the virus was not
contained(126,127). If we look at the numbers of reported infections in the first
four weeks of March (calendar weeks (CW) 10–13), we can see that this
actually looks like exponential growth, exactly as the RKI proclaimed. And
that is how it was presented everywhere.
However, what the RKI did not point out was that in calendar week 12 the
number of tests had approximately tripled and increased again the following
week. The RKI apparently did not feel duty-bound to truth and clarification
towards the population. So therefore, are these figures distorted? Why didn’t
they correct the numbers? That could have been achieved by stating the
number of infections per 100,000 tests as shown in the second diagram.
36
The RKI text should rather have read as follows: “Dear fellow citizens,
our numbers show no exponential increase of new infections. There is no
need to worry.”
Indeed, the epidemic is literally “over the hill”, as you can nicely see from
the R-curve of the RKI, which was published on April 15 in the
Epidemiological Bulletin 17(128):
What is glaringly evident?
1) The epidemic had reached its peak at the beginning to the middle of
March, well before the lockdown on March 23.
2) The lockdown had no effect: numbers dropped no further after its
implementation.
37
April 2020: no reason to prolong the lockdown
How did things look in the middle of April when the decision of once again
prolonging the lockdown was pending?
Everything was really clear now. Just like the R-value, the number of
newly infected cases showed that the peak of infection had passed (Figure:
http://www.cidm.online). The upper curve depicts the number of “newly infected”
with the initial increase as officially presented; the lower shows those
numbers standardized to 100,000 tests. Columns show the actual numbers of
conducted tests.
38
The fact is that there had never been a danger of hospitals being
overwhelmed because there had never been an exponential growth of
infection numbers. There were thousands of empty beds. There never was a
giant “wave” of COVID-19 patients. Not because the measures were so
effective, but because the epidemic was over before they were put in place.
But all the hospitals postponed, or even suspended, all elective surgeries and
procedures such as hip or knee operations or check-ups for cancer patients.
Many hospitals reported occupancy reductions of up to 30% and more.
Doctors were put on short-time working hours(129).
The lockdown is extended
On April 15, Germany extended the lockdown. The rules for social distancing
and contact restrictions were prolonged. In public, social distancing of 1.5m
was mandatory and you were only allowed to be outside your domicile with
members of your family and one other person who was not part of your
household. The ban on meetings in houses of worship was prolonged. Social
events were prohibited. Some restrictions were eased. Shops with a retail
space of up to 800 square metres were allowed to re-open. Car dealers,
bicycle shops and book stores were excluded from this restriction and were
allowed to open their doors regardless of size. But amazingly, no matter
whether a crocheted scarf or a clinical face mask is used – masks became
mandatory!
Mandatory masks
There is simply a lack of clear evidence that people who are not ill or who are
not providing care to a patient should wear a mask to reduce influenza or
COVID-19 transmission(130).
We are not aware of any single scientifically sound and undisputed article
that would contradict the following:
1) There is no scientific evidence that symptom-free people without
cough or fever spread the disease.
2) Simple masks do not and cannot stop the virus.
39
3) Masks do not and cannot protect from infection.
4) Non-medical face masks have very low filter efficiency(131)
5) Cotton surgical masks can be associated with a higher risk of
penetration of microorganisms (penetration 97%). Moisture retention, reuse
of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of
infection(132).
Since the government enforced the use of masks, many elderly people
believed that they were safe while wearing them. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Wearing a mask can entail serious health hazards, especially
for people with pulmonary disease and cardiac insufficiency, for patients with
anxiety and panic disorders and of course for children. Even the WHO
originally stated that general wearing of masks did not serve any purpose(133).
What did the RKI say? In accordance with the shift in political opinion,
they also changed their previous recommendations and supported maskwearing.
“If people – even without symptoms – wore masks as a precaution,
it could minimize the risk of infection. Of note, this is not scientifically
documented.”
A report claiming that mask-wearing had provided positive effects was
basically flawed(134). According to the study, the effects (drop in numbers of
infections) became apparent 3–4 days after implementation of the regulation.
However, this is impossible. The RKI states: “An effect of the respective
measures can only be seen after a delay of 2–3 weeks because on top of the
incubation period (up to 14 days) there is a time delay between illness and
receipt of the reports.”(135)
In fact, there is no study to even suggest that it makes any sense for
healthy individuals to wear masks in public(136,137). One might suspect that
the only political reason for enforcing the measure is to foster fear in the
population.
Last argument for extension of lockdown: the impending
second wave?
The constant fear-spreading experts of the government obviously pursue the
same goal. In Germany, Drosten warned again and again. And somehow it
40
seemed as if every country had its own “Drosten”.
At the end of April, he again fantasized about the big-time wave in
Germany – now, of course, the second big wave(138): “Would the R-value
through carelessness … be once again more than 1 and thereby exponentially
increase virus spread, this would likely have devastating consequences. Since
the wave of infection would start everywhere at the same time, it would have
a different momentum.”
But where should this second wave of infection come from?
Drosten: We can learn this from the Spanish flu. It started at the end of
the First World War, and most of the 50 million victims died during the
second wave.
That is true. But at the time of the Spanish flu, antibiotics were not
available to treat secondary bacterial infections that were the main cause of
death(139). Consequently, people of all ages died. Whoever compares
COVID-19 to the Spanish flu is either completely clueless or deliberately
intends to spread fear.
It is clear that viruses change but do not simply disappear. Just as there
has always been a flu season, there has also always been a coronavirus
season(140).
Here we see the typical course of a coronavirus epidemic(141):
Does this look vaguely familiar and reminiscent of our RKI data with the
March peak?
But wait, this Finnish study stems from 1998!
41
So, if any government should decide they want a second wave, all they
need to do is to radically increase the number of tests in the annual
coronavirus season. This simple manipulation will not fail to trigger the next
laboratory pandemic.
Relaxing the restrictions with the emergency brake applied
Professor Stefan Homburg, Director of the Institute of Public Finance at the
University of Hannover, never tired of explaining why the RKI numbers
themselves called for immediate termination of all measures(142).
He was not the only one, several others raised their voices. But critical
opinions were completely ignored. Why? Did the government have an
exclusive contract with Drosten, who keeps on warning and warning: by
loosening restrictions, Germany will risk losing its lead in the fight against
the pandemic(143).
But eventually the time arrived. The beginning of May witnessed a
cautious reopening of shops. Schools and day care centres would soon be
able to admit children again. Contact restrictions were slightly relaxed and
life was restarted, but at a painfully slow pace.
But the RKI warns and warns and warns(144): “The reproduction factor is
more than 1 once again. It’s at 1.1, to be exact … ”.
Horror of horrors, were we too rash? Many were puzzled that the daily Rfactor
fluctuated erratically. This of course was due to the generally unknown
fact that when infection numbers are very low, the R-factor can be
manipulated at will simply by altering the number of tests conducted.
And then, the great scare: Do we possibly have excess mortality(145)?
Excess mortality? Really? Could it possibly have anything to do with the
collateral damage invoked by the unwarranted measures? This question was
posed by a senior member of the risk analysis division at the German
Ministry of the Interior. He produced a remarkable document in which the
risks of collateral damage were meticulously analysed. He arrived at the
conclusion that the measures were excessive, and that they caused immense
and irreparable collateral damage without providing any true benefits. The
synopsis of the paper was sent to ten external experts, including ourselves, to
have the numbers checked.
42
He then attempted to present the document to the Minister:
unsuccessfully. He then sent the document to his colleagues in risk
assessment divisions around the country. And was suspended for his efforts.
We stated in a press release that we considered the conclusions of the
paper to be very important. But the Ministry ridiculed the document, saying
that it was no more than a private opinion(146). The media chimed in and
considered the case closed.
Lockdown extended again!
At the end of May, just before the agreement on contact restrictions between
the government and the federal states expired, a further extension of the
measures was proclaimed until June 29.
On May 25, Minister of Health, Jens Spahn stated in the most widespread
German daily newspaper, “Under no circumstances should the impression be
gained that the pandemic is already over.”
Only chancellor Merkel could top this – and so she did 4 days later. In an
historic declaration, she announces to the depressed nation: “The pandemic
has just begun!”
And this at a time when the epidemics were all over throughout Europe.
But an extension of the lockdown seemed to make sense in the light of a
recent article published in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific
journals in the world. Only research groups of high standing have realistic
chances of seeing their names in print in this journal. Imperial College
London rallied such a group, among whom the name Neil Ferguson may ring
a bell. In a remarkable study, the investigators presented a computer-based
analysis showing that the global lockdown had saved many millions of
lives(147).
Known only to few was the fact that a string of protests by scientists of
international standing rained into Nature’s office. All pointed to the
fundamental flaws in the analysis that had caused false conclusions to be
drawn. Correctly handled, the data actually showed the opposite: the
lockdown had had no effect on the course of the pandemic. Readers who
wish to read the paper should not forget to look at these critical comments
that follow after the article(148).
So, while other countries like Denmark at no time recommended that
43
healthy people who move around in public generally wear face masks(149)
and other countries like Latvia were well on their way to freedom, Merkel
and friends decided against too much liberty for their people. The masks must
stay on!
44
4
Too much? Too little? What
happened?
Overburdened hospitals
The pictures from Italy and Spain incited fear. Mortally ill people and no
available ventilators? How dreadful. Deaths were depicted as slow, merciless
drownings. We were shown what happens when hospital capacity reaches its
limits and beyond. During all the deliberations about what was to be done in
Germany, there was always – first and foremost – the fear stoked by the RKI
that such scenarios happening in Germany could not be ruled out. As a result,
ventilators were purchased, intensive care beds were held in reserve,
operations were postponed or cancelled. In Berlin a new hospital for 1,000
patients was hurriedly built – in 38 days – and then, when it was completed,
not one patient in sight(150).
We simply must take a closer look at this. At the beginning of March it
became clear that the epidemic was sweeping through Germany. Was our
health care system well prepared? Professor Uwe Janssens, President of the
Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine,
gave the all-clear in the “Deutschlandfunk” (German World Service)(151):
“We have enough intensive care beds!”. Even if we were to have as many
coronavirus infections as Italy, we had approximately 28,000 beds in
intensive care units, 25,000 of which were equipped with ventilators, so
nearly 34 beds per 100,000 citizens. This was like no other country in
Europe. Professor Reinhard Busse, leader of the specialist field “Management
of the Health Care System” at the Technical University in Berlin, gave the
all-clear as well: “Even if we had conditions like in Italy, we would be
45
nowhere near to being overburdened”(152).
But the RKI kept fostering fear. The “number of intensive care beds will
not be sufficient”, Wieler, president of the RKI and trained veterinarian,
announced at the beginning of April(153). Why? Wieler explained: “The
epidemic continues and the number of fatalities will keep going up”.
Actually, the real explanation – kept under lock and key at that time – was
quite different. It came to light in May, when a previously confidential
document appeared on the website of the German Ministry of the
Interior(154). The shocking contents confirmed circulating rumours. The
document, dating to mid-March, was the minutes of a meeting of the
coronavirus task-force. There, one was astounded to learn that fearmongering
was the official agenda created to manage the epidemic. All the
pieces of the puzzle then fell into place. Everything had been planned. The
high numbers of infection were purposely reported because the numbers of
deaths would “sound too trivial”. The central goal was to achieve a massive
shock effect. Three examples are given how to stir up primal fears in the
general population:
1) People should be scared by a detailed description of dying from
COVID-19 as “slow drowning”. Imagining death through excruciating slow
suffocation incites the most dread.
2) People should be told that children were a dangerous source of
infection because they would unwittingly carry the deadly virus and kill their
parents.
3) Warnings about alarming late consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infections
were to be scattered. Even though not formally proven to exist, they would
frighten people.
Altogether, this strategy would enable all intended measures to be
implemented with general acceptance by the public.
HORRIBLE!
Now that the method in the madness is known, it becomes more
understandable why Wieler steadfastly adhered to his projections. Numbers
of infections were used to calculate the number of intensive care beds that
would be needed, without taking into account that 90% of infected
individuals would not fall seriously ill. And that the majority of patients who
46
did require hospitalisation would recover and be dismissed.
Simply adding the daily number of new infections to the curve (top curves
in the graph) was of course senseless. The recoveries should have been
subtracted from the number of positively tested persons if a realistic indicator
of hospital burden had really been sought.
Strictly speaking, one would also have to subtract the deceased, but since
there were so few – tragic and sad as that was for every individual case, it
made no difference in the graphic representation.
The fact is that we were never at any risk of our health care system
collapsing. In mid-April there was NO REASON for further measures. All
should have been revoked immediately. While the hospitals waited for non-
47
existent coronavirus patients, those genuinely requiring treatment were not
admitted. Beds were empty. Hospitals ran into financial problems. Many
applied for short-time work for doctors and nursing staff – in the midst of the
imagined crisis(155). The situation in other countries was similar. Thousands
of US physicians were placed on administrative leave because the number of
routine outpatient visits dropped by a landslide(156).
Shortage of ventilators?
At the commencement of the pandemic, experts contended that invasive
ventilation would be a first-line requirement to rescue COVID-19 patients
from a horrible death by suffocation. At the same time, this measure would
minimize the risk of infection of medical personnel. As a consequence, the
German government decided to purchase and store thousands of ventilators in
reserve.
This turned out to be a very bad bet(157–161).
Artificially ventilated patients require very close attention(162). Oxygen is
forced through a tube into the lungs. It is not uncommon for bacteria to hitch
a ride and then cause life-threatening pneumonia. The risk of these hospitalacquired
infections rises by the day, which is why medical students learn that
the ventilator should be used no longer than is absolutely necessary.
In contrast, COVID-19 patients were often put on ventilation early and
without true need, and kept on the apparatus far longer than they ever should
have been. Why? Because it was officially stipulated that invasive ventilation
was the best means to reduce the risk of virus spread via aerosol to the
personnel. However, aerosols probably play no important role in disease
transmission(163). The sole fact that SARS-CoV-2 can be found in aerosol
droplets(164) does not mean that it is there in sufficient quantities to cause
illness(165).
How many lives were lost because of this advice?
Many specialists later stated that COVID-19 patients were intubated and
ventilated for too long and too often(160,161). The risks were high and success
more than questionable. Professor Gerhard Laier-Groeneveld from the lung
clinic in Neustadt advised that intubation should be avoided in any event. His
48
COVID-19 patients received oxygen with simple respiratory masks and he
lost not a single life(160).
Professor Thomas Voshaar, Chair of the Association of Pneumology
Clinics, shared the same view(161). He pointed out that the high death rates in
other countries “should be reason enough to question this strategy of early
intubation”. At the time of his report, he had mechanically ventilated one of
his 40 patients. The patient subsequently died. All the others survived.
Here is a shortened version of a radio interview with palliative physician
Dr Matthias Thöns(166): “Politics these days has a very one-sided orientation
towards intensive care treatment, towards buying more ventilators and
offering ICU beds as a reward. But we must remember that most of the
severely ill COVID-19 patients are very old people with multiple underlying
diseases; 40% of those come heavily care-dependent from assisted living
facilities. Previously, this group would ordinarily receive more palliative
instead of intensive care. But now, a new disease is diagnosed and this whole
client base is turned into intensive care patients.”
He points out that according to a Chinese study, 97% die despite maximal
therapy (including ventilation). Of those who survive, only a small number is
able to return to their former lives, many of them left with severe disabilities.
These are circumstances that most seniors would refuse to risk. He rightly
says that critically ill patients should openly be told the truth about their
condition. They should themselves decide which course they wish to take:
intensive care treatment in isolation, or symptomatic treatment in the circle of
loved ones. The individual will should have highest priority. Thöns is quite
sure that most people would prefer the second option.
Were the measures appropriate?
It became clear fairly early that SARS-CoV-2 was not a killer virus and there
never had been an exponential increase in new infections. The price for
attempting to contain the virus was absurdly high.
What did the government do right?
49
?
The authors have no answer to this question. They look forward to receiving
yours.
What did the government do wrong?
It proclaimed an epidemic of national concern that did not exist
It deprived citizens of their rights
It made arbitrary instead of evidence-based decisions
It intentionally spread fear
It enforced senseless lockdown and mask-wearing
It devastated the economy and destroyed livelihoods
It disrupted the health care system
It inflicted immense suffering on the populace
What should our government have done?
It should have done what the chancellor and ministers solemnly declared
when they were sworn into office:
“I swear that I will use my power for the WELL-BEING of the German
public, to further its ADVANTAGES, to prevent DAMAGE, to PRESERVE
and DEFEND the constitution and the federal statutes, to diligently fulfil my
duty and practice just treatment towards everyone.”
50
5
Collateral damage
Dr David L. Katz, President of the True Health Initiative, asked on March 20
if our fight against the coronavirus was worse than the disease(167). Could
there not be more specific means to combat the disease? What about all the
collateral damage?
Stanford Professor Scott Atlas said during an interview that under the
misassumption that we have to contain COVID-19, we have created a
catastrophic situation in the health care sector(168). Irrational fears were
generated because the disease as a whole is a mild one. Thus, there is no
reason for comprehensive testing in the general population and it should be
done only where appropriate, namely in hospitals and nursing homes. At the
end of April, Atlas published an article entitled “The data are in – stop the
panic and total isolation”(169).
In Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, presiding officer of the German
parliament, stated that not absolutely everything must be subordinate to the
protection of life(170).
“If there is anything at all that has an absolute value in our constitution, it
is human dignity which is inviolable. But it does not preclude that we have to
die.” The media immediately flared back in righteous disgust: “Human dignity
versus human life – can you balance one against the other?”(171).
Many still fail to comprehend that we have sacrificed both.
Proponents of the pointless measures argue that every person has the right
to grow as old as possible. Even if the virus were only the straw that broke
the camel’s back, it was still at fault. Without the virus, the deceased may
have lived months or even years longer. It is our moral duty to sacrifice our
51
personal wants and needs when lives of others are at stake. The economy can
recover, the dead cannot. The Merkel mantra, chanted day and night by her
ardent followers: “Protecting the health of our citizens must, at all costs,
remain our supreme goal.”
Honourable as this may sound, it betrays an alarming inability to
comprehend the essence of public welfare. The following numbers have
already been presented but because of their importance, they will be repeated
here. During the course of this entire epidemic, a maximum number of 10 in
10,000 over 80 year-olds have died with or from the virus. The number of
“true” COVID-19 deaths cannot be higher than 1–2 per 10,000. How many
human lives were really prolonged by the horrendous measures? Maybe 2–4
per 10,000? Or even 4–8? But definitely not more. And at what cost?
The one employee of the GMI who dared to compile an analysis of the
collateral damage to the health care system was suspended. The government
was not interested. Nothing can be placed over human life. But what are the
consequences for health and welfare of the populace if the economy collapses
and people are confronted with the end of their existence?
Economic consequences
It will strike all countries. The global economic crisis could plunge 500
million people into poverty, so stated in a position paper by the UN(172).
The US Federal Reserve (FED) expects a dramatic decline of up to 30%
in American economic performance(173). FED director Jerome Powell
assumes a 20% to 25% increase in the unemployment rate. Almost 36.5
million people have lost their jobs. It is “the most traumatic job loss in the
history of the US economy,” says Gregory Daco, US Chief Economist of the
Oxford Economics Institute(174).
The EU commission predicts a deep recession of historic magnitude for
Europe(175).
According to their prognosis, the economy will shrink a good 7% and will
not completely recover in the next year.
In Germany too, the economy is starting to crumble. Since the second half
of March it is down to 80% of normal economic performance(176). Reduced
hours compensation is registered for about 10 million employees. Without
52
short-time work, the unemployment rate would have increased dramatically,
similar to the US. In April we have “only” 300,000 additional
unemployed(177). But this will not be the end of the story, not by a long shot.
The government boasted that they are weaving safety nets, the “greatest
rescue package in Germany’s history” will help mitigate the collateral
damage(178). But that rescue package is ridiculous in relation to the damage
that has been done. Countless people are falling through the net. Existences
have been destroyed and lives have been lost. They cannot be salvaged by
safety nets.
Disruption of medical care
Many who were ill were afraid to visit hospitals for fear of catching the
“killer virus”.
Often older people would rather not “be a burden” to their doctors, who
they thought were battling to save COVID-19 patients.
Patients requiring medical examinations were turned away, all that was
not deemed of “vital importance” cancelled or postponed.
Medical check-ups were not performed.
Operations were postponed to free up capacity for “coronavirus
patients”.
Domestic violence against women and children increased.
The number of suicides rose.
Drugs and suicide
Following the financial crisis of 2008, the number of suicides rose in
countries all over the world. According to the National Health Group Well
Being Trust, unemployment, economic downfall and despair could now drive
75,000 Americans to drug abuse and suicide(179). The Australian government
estimates a rise in suicides of 50%(180), a number 10 times higher than the
number of “coronavirus deaths”. Unemployment and poverty are also
predicted to markedly increase suicide rates in Germany(181).
53
Heart attack and stroke
Unemployment increases the risk of heart attack to an extent comparable to
cigarette smoking, diabetes and hypertension(182). But where did all the
patients with heart attacks disappear to? Admissions to emergency care units
dropped 30% as compared to the previous month. Not because the patients
were miraculously cured but because they were terrified of catching the
deadly virus in the hospital. Preliminary symptoms went unheeded, even
though such symptoms are often the harbinger of a deadly attack and need to
be closely attended to in hospital.
“This is a most dangerous development… There are now 50% fewer
patients with mild symptoms in the emergency room,” explains Dr Sven
Thonke, chief physician at the Clinic for Neurology in Hanau in a newspaper
interview(181). Many pending strokes initially cause mild symptoms such as
dizziness, speech, visual problems and muscle weakness. Thonke: “There are
now 50% fewer patients with mild-symptoms in the emergency room.” This
is extremely worrisome because more often than not mild symptoms herald
the severe stroke that can be rapidly fatal if the emergency is not immediately
tended to.
Other ailments
According to the scientific institute of the AOK (German health insurance
company), the following diagnoses dropped considerably in April: 51%
fewer respiratory diseases, 47% fewer diseases of the digestive tract, and
29% fewer injuries and poisonings(183).
Care of tumour patients was catastrophic. Monitoring of tumour treatment
was no longer conducted at the required levels. Control examinations were
postponed or cancelled. Patients waited in agony for the next appointment –
alone with their fears and the single remaining question: how much time was
still left to them.
Cancelled operations
30 million elective surgeries were postponed or cancelled worldwide during
54
the first 12 weeks of the pandemic(184). In 2018, 1.4 million operations were
performed on average every month. 50–90% of all scheduled operations were
postponed or not performed in March, April and May 2020. This translates to
at least 2 million operations that would normally have been performed. The
consequences must be profound.
Further consequences for the elderly
In Germany, more than 1,000 people over the age of 80 die every day(185).
While we are taking drastic measures to prevent them from dying of COVID-
19, we are making their lives less worth living. This cannot but impinge on
life expectancy.
Quality of life
Especially in old age – when many friends have already passed on and the
body no longer works the way it once did – life is not about how many more
days or years but about a life worth living. That could be accomplished by
exercise and remaining active, through social contacts, by taking recreational
holidays, visiting events and even shopping sprees, with regular visits to the
sauna or a fitness studio or the daily walk to the corner café.
But what happens when, all of a sudden, the café and everything else is
closed? No more visits to old friends, no more social events. And no visitors
either.
Loneliness and isolation
Functioning social networks safeguard the elderly from loneliness. Five to
twenty percent of senior German citizens feel lonely and isolated. After the
lockdown, almost all contact with other people stopped for months, which
must have worsened these feelings. For those who cannot leave the house
unassisted, nursing services arrange “senior social groups”, where the elderly
are picked up once a week and then taken safely home again. It’s not much,
but it’s so important to be with other people again and devastating when no
longer there.
55
Terminal care
Yes, every individual has the right to reach as old an age as possible. But
every person nearing the end of their life should also have the right to decide
how they want to go. Most do not fear the end. As the time approaches,
people become increasingly detached and willing to embark on their last
journey.
When we hear talk about the “older people” and we are told that it is our
moral duty to protect them, many picture sprightly seniors who are enjoying
their time on ocean liners. In reality, the endangered elderly are multi-morbid
individuals at the end of their lives. People who have not been able to leave
their beds for days, weeks or months. People whose tumours have spread
throughout their bodies and are in constant pain. People who cannot go on
anymore and maybe do not want to go on. People who sometimes just wait
for a kind fate to relieve them of their suffering.
Amidst all the protective measures for the high-risk groups in retirement
and nursing homes, at the end the individual decision should have the highest
priority. Most no longer care whether their loved ones bring the coronavirus
to them, as long as someone is there to hold their hand, to talk about the past,
and to whisper I love you and farewell(186).
Innocent and vulnerable: our children
Children – like the elderly – are the most vulnerable in our society and it is
our duty to care for them. Millions of children in the world are suffering
acutely from the coronavirus measures. “The coronavirus strikes more
children and their families than those who are actually gripped by the
infections,” says Cornelius Williams, Head of the UNICEF Child Protection
League(187).
Mental/psychological stress
Children cannot thrive without social contacts. Separation from key people
like grandma and grandpa, auntie and uncle, their best friends – the closed
schools, inaccessible playgrounds and barred sports fields disrupt their lives.
Social ethicists point out how vital it is for children to be in contact with their
56
peers(188).
Educational deficits
Children have a right to education. Since the schools have been closed,
millions of students are lagging behind according to an estimate of the
German Teacher Association. Their president, Heinz-Peter Meidinger, sees
educational deficits for approximately 3 million children, especially in
students from difficult social backgrounds and from impoverished
families(189).
Physical violence
Tens of thousands of children in Germany become victims of violence and
abuse every year(190). Crime statistics from 2018 show that
3 children die in the aftermath of physical violence every week
10 children are physically or mentally abused every day
40 children are sexually abused every day
And these, of course, are only the known cases. Can you imagine the
situation in coronavirus times?
When parents are stressed, on the brink of losing their jobs and facing
financial ruin?
When arguments and quarrels become a daily occurrence?
With increased alcohol consumption?
When children are at home day after day, with no way of escape?
Teachers who normally play important roles in safeguarding endangered
children are gone. Who then should notify the youth welfare office should the
need arise?
The government’s commissioner for abuse, Johannes-Wilhelm Rörig,
issued an urgent warning. There were indications from the quarantined town
of Wuhan that the cases of domestic violence had tripled during the “trappedat-
home” time. There were “equally alarming numbers” from Italy and Spain.
57
Consequences for the world’s poorest
Many in this country took the opportunity to get their house and garden back
into shape during the coronavirus crisis. Understandably, since home-office
work was only semi-effective for want of equipment and slow internet
connections. Actually, the majority of the middle class and the affluent were
not doing badly. Well, the neighbour who now has to apply for Hartz IV
(unemployment benefits) will surely get back on his feet. People tend to think
as far as their front door, maybe a bit beyond, but that’s it. Many are not
aware that the most severe consequences often affect the poorest of the poor.
One must not close one’s eyes to the fact that the existence and lives of
countless people are threatened.
Existential consequences
In India, there are hundreds of millions of day-labourers, many of whom led a
hand-to-mouth existence before the coronavirus restrictions robbed them of
their livelihoods. Now they have no more means to survive. They are
“protected” against the coronavirus and are in turn left to starve.
In many African countries, coronavirus lockdowns are brutally enforced
by police and military. Whoever shows his face on the streets is beaten.
Children, who usually survive on their one meal in school, are forbidden to
leave the house. They, too, can starve.
At the end of April, the Head of the UN World Food Program, David
Beasley, gave a warning before the UN Security Council: because of
coronavirus, there is a danger that the world will face a “hunger pandemic of
biblical proportions”(191). “It is expected that lockdowns and economic
recessions will lead to a drastic loss of income among the working poor. On
top of this, financial aid from overseas will decrease, which will hit countries
like Haiti, Nepal and Somalia, just to name a few. Loss of revenue from
tourism will doom countries like Ethiopia, since it represents 47 percent of
national income.”
Consequences for medical care and maintenance of health
Medical care is a luxury that only a few in the poorest countries can afford.
58
Advances and positive developments of recent years are now in danger of
collapse.
Vaccination campaigns against the measles were suspended in many
countries. Although measles rarely cause death in western countries, 3–6% of
the infected people in poor countries die, and those who survive often have
life-long disabilities. The virus has claimed 6,500 child deaths in the Congo
Republic(192).
Between 2003 and 2013, Zimbabwe succeeded in lowering yearly malaria
infections from 155 per 1,000 inhabitants to just 22. Now, and within a short
time, there have been more than 130 deaths and 135,000 infections. Two
thirds of all fatalities were < 5 year-old children.
According to the WHO, malaria deaths in sub-Saharan Africa could rise
to 769,000 in 2020, which would double the number for 2018. If so, they
would be thrown back to a “mortality standard” of 20 years ago. The
probable reason for this catastrophe is the fact that insecticide-treated
mosquito nets can no longer be adequately distributed.
Are the malaria deaths in Zimbabwe and the measles deaths in the Congo
only precursors of what is in store for the continent?
Synopsis
With the prescribed measures, was our government able to prolong the lives
of people who would leave us in the next days, months or perhaps a few
years? Maybe, maybe not. Were many lives saved through these measures?
They certainly were not, because these restrictions were imposed when the
epidemic was already subsiding.
One thing is certain. The immeasurable grief that these measures have
inflicted cannot possibly be put into words or numbers.
59
6
Did other countries fare better –
Sweden as a role model?
While we were lectured every day on the “pseudo-exponential” growth of
infections and talked into thinking that our health system would collapse if
drastic measures were not strictly enforced, a few other countries chose a
different path. They did not establish a curfew, they left restaurants, fitness
studios, and libraries etc. open to the public. Sweden is an example(193).
Epidemiologist Professor Anders Tegnell, who obviously learned from
mistakes he had made during the swine-flu epidemic, and his predecessor,
Johan Giesecke, who at an early stage pointed out that only the
implementation of evidence-based measures made any sense, both decided
that lockdowns were not only pointless, but dangerous. Giesecke explained in
an interview(194):
“There are only two measures that have a genuine scientific background.
One of these is hand-washing and we know this since the work of Ignaz
Semmelweis 150 years ago. The other is social distancing. Many of the
measures taken by European governments have no scientific basis. Closing
the borders for example is useless and does not help. Also, the closing of
schools has never proven to be effective.”
From a scientific stance, school closings are indeed known to make no
sense(89).
It did make sense, however, to count on the individual sense of
responsibility of the citizens, and on informational and educational
campaigns. People were informed on how to protect themselves – and they
did: without fear-mongering, without panic scenarios, lockdown, without
threat of a fine, without massive restrictions on their liberties.
60
Executive WHO director Mike Ryan called Sweden a “role model” in the
fight against the coronavirus(195).
Undeniably, Sweden did a lot of things right. But it reaped disgust and
disapproval from its neighbours. The German press left no stone unturned to
badmouth the Swedish way:
Sweden’s special path apparently failed (Deutschlandfunk, April 4,
2020)
Consequences cannot be predicted – 10% mortality rate: Sweden’s lax
special path during the coronavirus crisis is threatening to fail (Focus,
April 17, 2020)
Coronavirus in Sweden – Is the country heading for a catastrophe?
(RND, April 24, 2020)
Politicians also had their say.
Karl Lauterbach (SPD) accused Swedish men and women of acting
irresponsibly. “Crudely put, many of the elderly are sacrificed so that the
cafés do not have to close.”
Minister-President of Bavaria, Markus Söder, said: “This liberal course
claims VERY, VERY MANY victims …”
As a matter of fact, the epidemic in Sweden took a comparable course as
that in other countries.
Homburg describes this in an interview(196): “It seems that they want to
avoid at all costs acknowledging that there is an example to the opposite of
their own misguided policy. They have tried with every means at their
disposal – fake news followed by more fake news – to throw Sweden off its
chosen path. But Sweden stayed the course.”
Could we have taken this path in Germany? Count on the individual sense
of responsibility of the citizens and on information campaigns?
A favourite counter argument is Sweden’s population density. With 23
inhabitants per square kilometre it is about 10 times lower than in Germany,
so it is argued that it might work there, but never here. This would also apply
to Iceland, which is another positive example of how to master the
coronavirus crisis without lockdowns. Almost all of the 1,800 infected people
recovered. 10 COVID-19 deaths were registered – without any drastic
61
lockdown. Many restaurants and schools remained open and congregations of
up to 20 people were allowed.
This may be true, but here we also have a low population density. So let
us look instead at Hong Kong with 7.5 million residents and a population
density of 6,890 people per square kilometre. And what a surprise: Here, too,
it worked! It was a little more restrictive than Sweden and Iceland maybe, but
nevertheless without complete lockdown(197).
Or let us look at Japan (126 million inhabitants, population density 336
per square kilometre) or South Korea.
Japan and South Korea were among the first countries outside of China to
be affected by the outbreak. Contrary to China’s draconian measures, the
mass quarantines in wide parts of Europe and in major US cities, regular life
continued in Japan for a large part of the population. Restaurants stayed open
– without a serious disaster(198). Japan has a very small number of
coronavirus infections – possibly because they did not do much testing.
Now, we know that the number of infections is of no significance. So let
us look at the really important issue, namely the number of deceased: this,
too, is extremely low. Much wrong cannot have been done in Japan!
In contrast to Japan, South Korea performed more testing than any other
country, but shutdown of public life was also largely avoided. No cities were
cordoned off, nor general curfews imposed. Public institutions, shops,
restaurants and cafés stayed open(199).
South Korea banked on 1) informing the public and 2) testing and tracing.
Mass testing was performed in specially erected drive-through centres.
Radical transparency was ensured by a tracking app that tagged the
whereabouts of the infected persons.
Sweden, Iceland, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan – all these examples
have confirmed what recognised experts have said all along: lockdowns are
not necessary. They cause massive social and economic damage that cannot
justify any possible benefits. But were there benefits at all?
Are there benefits of lockdown measures?
At the end of 2019, the WHO published a document describing various
measures to be taken in case of a future pandemic(200). The major goal would
62
be, as we have heard before, to “flatten the curve” by reducing the number of
new daily infections. A number of measures were considered “Out” from the
very beginning: they were NOT recommended IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES!
Hmm – so how come everything happened as it did? If it had been
possible, would the world have also been put under UV-light and the
humidity raised beyond the tropics?
After telling us what should definitely not be done, the WHO went on to
describe other measures – lockdown etc. – that it deemed more worthy of
recommendation. Hidden in an appendix was, admittedly, a note that the
recommendations had no scientific basis.
Several critical scientists came to the conclusion early on that lockdown
was the wrong path. Among others, Nobel laureate Professor Michael Levitt
spoke out. He considered the lockdown a “gigantic mistake” and called for
more appropriate measures that should specifically aim to protect the
vulnerable groups(201).
Nonetheless, most countries followed the “role model” China.
63
All of Italy was completely quarantined from March 10 by a stay-at-home
order. Exceptions applied only in emergencies, for important work orders and
for errands that could not be postponed. 60 million people were under house
arrest and the streets were totally empty for a whole two months. Other
countries like Spain, France, Ireland, Poland undertook similar action. With
what effect? The epidemic is over, so let us look at the death toll – keeping in
mind that the numbers are grossly inflated because of faulty counting
methods and case definition.
Did fewer people die in countries with lockdown measures?
When we look at the death rates per 1 million inhabitants for some European
countries with lockdown (alphabetically, first 13 columns), we see that the
numbers appear to vary quite considerably. The median number is around
340 (red bar represents mean with standard deviation). Realise, however, that
this is low in comparison to something in the order of 10,000 deaths per
million that occur annually in Germany and other European countries. And
that the coronavirus numbers are grossly exaggerated because most derive
from deaths with rather than death from the virus. Divide them by at least 5
to arrive at realistic numbers. Then, the variations lose meaning. Respiratory
infections caused by many agents similarly sweep like gusts of wind that
blow 20 or 100 of 10,000 leaves from a tree. Every loss is sad, but most are
fateful. Preventive measures need to be appropriate so as to avoid collateral
damage that would sweep other leaves from the tree.
The press relentlessly emphasized that Sweden would pay a high price for
its liberal path. In actuality, we see that Sweden without lockdown is not
significantly different when compared to countries with lockdown. South
Korea, Japan and Hong Kong as well do not conspicuously stand out with an
exorbitantly high number of so called “corona deaths”. Quite the contrary is
the case.
64
So what do we see: countries without lockdown measures did not slide
into a catastrophe.
We know that COVID-19 can run a fatal course in elderly patients with
underlying conditions. This leads to the next important question.
Were high-risk groups better protected in countries with lockdown?
The simple answer is, No.
Approximately half of the “coronavirus victims” died in care facilities and
retirement homes, no matter where you look. In Western countries, these
numbers vary from 30% to 60%(202). Countries with relatively drastic
lockdowns like Ireland (60%), Norway (60%) or France (51%) have no better
figures than Sweden (45%). Nursing homes require specific protection which
general lockdown measures can in no way achieve.
A sensible concept for protection of genuinely vulnerable groups
compliant with ethical rules and regulations(203) would have solved the
problem.
Would immediate suspension of the lockdown have had dire consequences?
Let us look at the Czech Republic. From March 16, curfews were instated,
citizens were only allowed to go to work, to go grocery shopping, to see a
doctor or to go for walks in public parks. Like everywhere, the lockdown
could not prevent the increase in infections. By court decision, the measures
had to be rescinded on April 24. Was there a new wave of new infections and
65
deadly casualties? Oh – it really seems so! Is the Czech Republic
experiencing the much-feared second wave of COVID-19 infections – a
scenario feared all across the continent? Of course not! The number of tests
has been increased(204).
These data just illustrate how irrelevant and misleading the numbers of
false-positive “new cases” are when the virus is more or less gone. This is
confirmed by looking at the number of daily deaths. With a corresponding
delay due to the incubation period, there should be a significant increase in
the middle of July (rectangle). But the numbers kept sinking and the epidemic
in the country was over as well (Worldometers, July 2020).
66
This scenario of another “wave of infections” is typical for many
countries. It is often misused to maintain fear in the population and to
prolong senseless measures(205).
In fact, the epidemic followed essentially the same course all over Europe.
The effects of the lockdown were exclusively negative.
In a few countries such as Israel, there currently seems to be a second
increase in the number of daily deaths. Media revel in spreading news of the
dreaded second wave. But do not be fooled. Look closely and inform
yourself. Numbers must always be set in relation – to the number of
residents, number of PCR tests, average number of total deaths. If the number
of people who die with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is small, as in
Israel, perfectly irrelevant increases (e.g. from 2 to 6) can be turned into
sensational news: the death toll has tripled! Interestingly, at the height of the
COVID-19 epidemic in March, Israel’s overall deaths per month dropped to
the lowest rate in four years. So there was never even a first “COVID-19
wave”. In July, the number of so-called “COVID-19 deaths” per 1 million
population was not even half as high as in Germany (Worldometers, July
2020).
So which measures would have actually been correct?
Simple: a resolute protection of the vulnerable groups, especially those in
nursing and care facilities. Period.
67
7
Is vaccination the universal
remedy?
“There can be no return to normality until we have a vaccine,” declares
Michael Kretschmer, Minister-President of Saxony(206).
More and more voices were raised that we needed a vaccine before we
could return to normal life.
At the beginning of June, the German Federal Ministry of Finance issued
a plan to boost the economy: Item 53: “The coronavirus pandemic ends when
a vaccine is available”(207)! This is hysterical! Since when can a government
decide how and when a pandemic ends?
On Easter Sunday, Bill Gates was allotted ten minutes prime time to
address the German nation on television(208).
Ingo Zamperoni (TV host): “It is becoming increasingly clear that we can
only get a grip on this pandemic if we develop a vaccine.”
Bill Gates: “We will ultimately administer this newly developed vaccine
to 7 billion people, so we cannot afford problems with adverse side effects.
However, we will make the decision to use the vaccine on a smaller data
basis than usual. This will enable rapid progress to be made.”
Rapid progress on a small data basis? Is this the right way to fight a
disease with relative low fatality rate?
Remarkably, start-up financing for the global search for a coronavirus
vaccine was accomplished at the beginning of May by sleight of hand. The
EU collected almost 7.5 billion euro with their donor conference. Germany
and France pledged a large portion. A special programme was launched by
our government to serve this purpose. The plan is to contribute 750 million
euro toward the development of a vaccine.
68
But does vaccination really make sense? How vulnerable are we towards
the virus? How many lives are threatened that need to be protected?
On the question of immunity against COVID-19
A short excursion into the field of immunology.
What does immunity against coronaviruses depend on?
The coronavirus binds via protein projections (so-called spikes) that
recognise specific molecules (receptors) on our cell. This can be likened to
virus hands grasping the handles of doors that then open to allow entry. After
multiplication, viral progenies are released and can infect other cells.
Immunity against coronaviruses rests on two pillars: 1) antibodies, 2)
specialised cells of our immune system, the so-called helper lymphocytes and
killer lymphocytes.
When a new virus enters the body and causes illness, the immune system
responds by mobilising these arms of defence. Both are trained to specifically
recognise the invading virus, and both are endowed with the gift of long-term
memory. Upon re-invasion by the virus, they are recruited to the new battle
sites, their prowess bolstered through their previous encounter with the
sparring partner.
Many different antibodies are generated, each specifically recognising a
tiny part of the virus. Note that only the antibodies that bind the “hands” of
the virus are protective because they can stop the virus from gripping the
69
handles of the door (step 1). Classical viral vaccines are designed to make our
immune system produce such antibodies. It is believed that an individual will
thus become immune to the virus.
Three points require emphasis.
1. If you are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and nothing is found this
does not mean that you were not infected. Severe symptoms often
correlate with high production of antibodies, mild symptoms only lead
to low antibody levels and many asymptomatic infections probably
occur without any antibody production.
2. If antibodies are found this does not mean that you are immune.
Current immunological tests cannot selectively detect protective
antibodies directed against the “hands” of the virus. Other antibodies
show up at the same time. Testing cannot give any reliable
information on the “immune status” of an individual and, as will
follow next, is essentially useless.
3. The outcome of an encounter between “protective” antibodies and the
virus is not “black or white”, not a “now or never”. Numbers are
important. A wall of protecting antibodies may ward off a small attack
– for instance when someone coughs at a distance. The attack
intensifies as the person comes closer. The scales begin to tip. Some
viruses may now overcome the barrier and make it into the cells. If the
cough comes from close quarters, the battle becomes one-sided and
ends in a quick victory for the virus.
So even if vaccination is “successful”, meaning that production of protective
antibodies has taken place, it does not guarantee immunity. To worsen
matters, antibody production spontaneously wanes after just a few months.
Protection, if any at all, is at best short-lived.
The idea of a personal “Immune Status” document is scientifically unsound.
What happens after the virus enters the cell? Experiments conducted on mice
have examined this in detail for SARS-CoV, the original SARS virus and
close relative of the present SARS-CoV-2. It was demonstrated that the
second arm of the immune system comes into play. Lymphocytes arrive on
70
the scene. A coordinated series of events takes place during which helper
cells explode into action and activate their partners, the killer
lymphocytes(209). These seek out the cells that contain the virus and kill them.
The factory is destroyed – the fire is extinguished.
Cough and fever go away.
How can killer lymphocytes know which cells to attack? Put in simple
words: imagine an infected cell to be a factory that produces and assembles
the virus parts. Bits and pieces that are not assembled into the viruses become
waste products that the cell removes in an ingenious way: it transports them
out and puts them in front of the door. The patrolling killer cells see the trash
and move in for the kill (step 2).
This second arm of our immune system is seldom talked about, but it is
probably actually all-important – much more so than the antibodies that
represent a rather shaky first line of defence. Most importantly, waste
products derived from different coronaviruses share similarities. Killer
lymphocytes recognising the waste of one virus can therefore be expected to
recognise at least some of the waste of others.
Would this imply cross-immunity?
Yes. Coronavirus mutations take place in very small steps. Protective
antibodies and lymphocytes against type A will therefore also be quite
effective against progeny Aa. If B comes to visit, you get another cold and
cough, but then your immune status broadens to cover A, Aa, B and Bb.
The scope of immunity expands with each new infection. And
lymphocytes can remember.
Who does not recall their child’s first year in kindergarten? Oh no, not
again, here comes the umpteenth cold with runny nose, cough and fever. The
child is ill all through the long winter! Luckily, it gets better the second year
and the third will be weathered with maybe just one or two colds. By the time
school starts, the operational base for combating the viruses has grown rock
solid.
So what does “Immunity against coronavirus” really mean?
Does “immune” mean that we do not get infected at all?
71
No. It means we don’t fall seriously ill.
And not getting sick does not rest solely on prevention of infection by
antibodies, but more on “putting out the fire”. When a new variant appears,
many people may get infected but because the fires are quickly extinguished,
they will not fall seriously ill. The relative few who fare worse do so because
the balance between attack and defence is heavily in favour of the virus. But
in the absence of pre-existing illness, the scales tip back again. The virus will
be overcome. As a rule, it is only for people with pre-existing conditions that
the virus may become the last straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back.
This is why coronavirus infections run a mild or even symptom-free
course and why an epidemic with any “new” virus is never followed by a
second, more serious, wave.
Why do annual coronavirus epidemics end in summer? Well, just one
speculation. Over 50% of the northern European population becomes vitamin
D-deficient in the dark winter months. Possibly, replenishment of vitamin D
stores by sunshine and the shift of activities to outdoors are simple important
reasons.
What happens to the virus after an epidemic? It joins its relatives and
circulates with them in the population. Infections continue to occur but most
go unnoticed because of the vitalised immune system. Once in a while,
someone will get his summer flu. But such is life.
Can a similar pattern be expected with SARS-CoV-2?
The authors believe that is exactly what we have witnessed. 85–90% of the
SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals did not fall ill. Most probably, their
lymphocytes extinguished the fires in time to limit viral production. Put very
simply: the virus was a new variant and able to infect almost anyone. But
immunity was already widespread due to the presence of lymphocytes that
cross-recognised the virus.
Does proof exist that lymphocytes from unexposed individuals crossrecognise
SARS-CoV-2?
Yes. In a recent German study, lymphocytes from 185 blood samples
obtained between 2007 and 2019 were examined for cross-recognition of
72
SARS-CoV-2. Positive results were found in no less than 70–80%, and this
applied to both helper and killer lymphocytes(210). A US study with
lymphocytes from 20 unexposed donors similarly reported the presence of
lymphocytes that were cross-reactive with the new virus(211). In these and
another Swedish study it was also found that even non-symptomatic or mild
SARS-CoV-2 infections provoked strong T-cell responses(212). We suspect
that these unusually vigorous T-cell responses to a first infection represent
classical booster phenomena occurring in pre-existing populations of reactive
T-lymphocytes.
Could the idea that lymphocytes mediate cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2 be
tested?
The concept of lymphocyte-mediated herd immunity that we present follows
from the integration of latest scientific data(209–212) into the established
context of host immunity to viral infections. The idea can actually be put to
test. Thus, in a recent study, cynomolgus monkeys were successfully infected
with SARS-CoV-2(213). Although all animals shed the virus, not a single one
fell ill. Minor lesions were found in the lungs of two animals, attesting to the
fact that vigorous production of the virus had taken place.
In essence, these findings replicated what has been witnessed in healthy
humans. Repetition of the monkey experiment in animals depleted of
lymphocytes would show whether herd immunity had indeed derived from
the presence of the cells.
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question
The development of vaccines against dreaded diseases such as smallpox,
diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis represented turning points in the history
of medicine. Vaccination against a number of further diseases followed
which today belong to the standard repertoire of preventive medicine. Now,
the most pressing issue arises whether a global vaccination programme is
needed to end the coronavirus crisis. This question is so important that a
debate urgently needs to be conducted to reach a global consensus on three
basic points.
73
1. When is the development of a vaccine called for? We venture to
answer: when an infection regularly leads to severe illness and/or
serious sequelae in healthy individuals, as is not the case with SARSCoV-
2.
2. When would mass vaccination not be reasonable? We propose that
mass vaccination is not reasonable if a large part of the population is
already sufficiently protected against life-threatening disease, as is the
case for SARS-CoV-2.
3. When will vaccination likely be unsuccessful? We predict that
vaccination will fail when a virus co-existing worldwide with man and
animals continuously undergoes mutational change, and when
individuals become exposed to high doses of virus during spread of
the infection.
In the authors’ view, a global vaccination programme thus makes no sense.
The risks far outweigh any possible benefit right from the start.
Experts around the world express their concerns and warn of rushed
COVID-19 vaccines without sufficient safety guarantees(214,215).
Yet, researchers are currently working on more than 150 COVID-19
vaccine candidates(216), with some already in advanced clinical trials. The
aim of most vaccines is to achieve high levels of neutralising antibodies
against the binding spike proteins of the virus and cellular responses(217,218).
Four major strategies are being followed.
1. Inactivated or attenuated whole virus vaccines. Inactivated
vaccines require production of large quantities of the virus, which
need to be grown in chicken eggs or in immortalised cell lines. There
is always the risk that a virus batch will contain dangerous
contaminants and produce severe side effects. Moreover, the
possibility exists that vaccination may actually worsen the course of
subsequent infection(219), as has been observed in the past with
inactivated measles and respiratory syncytial virus vaccine(220,221).
Attenuated vaccines contain replicating viruses that have lost their
ability to cause disease. The classic example was the oral polio
vaccine that was in use for decades before tragic outbreaks of polio
occurred in Africa that were found to be caused not by wild virus, but
74
by the oral vaccine(222).
2. Protein vaccines. These will contain the virus spike protein or
fragments thereof. Supplementation with immune stimulators,
adjuvants that may cause serious side-effects, is always necessary(217).
3. Viral vectors as gene-based vaccines. The principle here is to
integrate the relevant coronavirus gene into the gene of a carrier virus
(e.g. adenovirus) that infects our cells(217). Replication-defective
vectors are unable to amplify their genome and will deliver just one
copy of the vaccine gene into the cell. To bolster effectiveness,
attempts have been made to create replication-competent vaccines.
This was undertaken with the Ebola vaccine rVSV-ZEBOV. However,
viral multiplication caused severe side effects in at least 20% of the
vaccinated, including rash, vasculitis, dermatitis and arthralgia.
4. Gene-based vaccines. In these cases, the viral gene is delivered to the
cell either as DNA inserted into a plasmid or as mRNA that is directly
translated into protein following cell uptake.
A great potential danger of DNA-based vaccines is the integration of
plasmid DNA into the cell genome(223). Insertional mutagenesis
occurs rarely but can become a realistic danger when the number of
events is very large, i.e. as in mass vaccination of a population. If
insertion occurs in cells of the reproductive system, the altered genetic
information will be transmitted from mother to child. Other dangers of
DNA vaccines are production of anti-DNA antibodies and
autoimmune reactions(224).
Safety concerns linked to mRNA vaccines include systemic
inflammation and potential toxic effects(225).
A further immense danger looms that applies equally to mRNA-based
coronavirus vaccines. At some time during or after production of the
viral spike, waste products of the protein must be expected to become
exposed on the surface of targeted cells. The majority of healthy
individuals have killer lymphocytes that recognise these viral
products(210,211). It is inevitable that autoimmune attacks will be
mounted against the cells. Where, when, and with which effects this
might occur is entirely unknown. But the prospects are simply
terrifying.
75
Yet, hundreds of volunteers who were never informed of these unavoidable
risks have already received injections of DNA and mRNA vaccines encoding
the spike protein of the virus, and many more are soon to follow. No genebased
vaccine has even received approval for human use, and the present
coronavirus vaccines have not undergone preclinical testing as normally
required by international regulations. Germany, a country whose populace
widely rejects genetic manipulation of food and opposes animal experiments,
now stands at the forefront of these genetic experiments on humans. Laws
and safety regulations have been bypassed in a manner that would, under
normal circumstances, never be possible. Is this perhaps why the government
still declares an “epidemic situation of national concern” to exist – in the
absence of serious new infections? For then the new German Infection
Protection Act empowers the government to make exceptions to the
provisions of the Medicinal Products Act, the medical device regulations, and
regulations on occupational safety and health. And this has given the green
light to the fast-track vaccine development project.
But the authors wonder whether the Infection Protection Act can go so far
as to permit genetic experiments to be conducted on humans who have not
been informed of the potential dangers.
Pandemic or no pandemic – the role of the WHO
Actually, have we not had a lighter version of pandemic-driven vaccination
hype before?
Exactly the same thing happened with the “swine flu” in 2009. Everyone
was told that a vaccine was desperately needed to stop the deadly pandemic.
Vaccines were then produced at miraculous speed – and sold en masse to
states around the world.
Prior to 2009, a pandemic required three criteria to be met(226):
The pathogen must be new
The pathogen must spread and cross continents rapidly
The pathogen must generally cause serious and often fatal disease
The swine flu turned out to meet the first two criteria, but not the third.
Because the call to declare a pandemic was very pressing, especially from the
76
pharmaceutical industry, major financers of the WHO(227), the WHO cut the
Gordian knot with a stroke of genius. A pandemic, it declared, can take a
mild or serious course!
In 2010, the definition of a pandemic was simplified yet further as “the
worldwide spread of a new disease”. Flu and coronaviruses continuously
undergo mutation and it is to be expected that variants will occasionally
emerge that cause somewhat atypical disease that could then be dubbed as
“new”. The swine flu provided the stage for a first exercise in the
employment of panic-making strategy to handle a pandemic. A typical
headline: “Swine flu: the calm before the storm?”(228) appeared in December
of 2009 when it was clear that virtually no one was ill and the course of the
infection had been milder than previous waves of influenza. Still, virologists
warned of underestimating the “dangerous” virus: “If we look at this virus in
an animal experiment and compare it with preceding viruses, one sees that
the virus is not harmless at all! It is much more dangerous than the annual
H3N2-virus.”
Brilliant. But what does this have to do with human medicine? Which
prominent scientist spread this frightening conclusion with such conviction?
Ah yes, a certain Professor Drosten.
The article continues: When, in the coming Christmas days, the Germans
vigorously intermix their viruses, a second wave seems inevitable. This could
be considerably more severe than the first.
A second wave was predicted, with the medical health system being
hopelessly overwhelmed, says, not Professor Drosten for once, but Professor
Peters from the University of Münster. He feared that the number of beds in
intensive care units would be insufficient. Moreover, many patients would
need artificial respiration. Dramatic situations could be created in the
overwhelmed hospitals.
Are you also having déjà-vu right now?
A nationwide vaccination with the hastily produced and barely tested
H1N1 vaccine was recommended. 60 million doses of adjuvanted vaccine
were purchased for the German population. Non-adjuvanted vaccine was
obtained only for high members of the government(229).
Again, this all happened when it was clear that the swine flu pandemic
had run a light course. The majority of the public decided wisely against the
77
senseless vaccination. What was the end of the story? Trucks loaded with
over 50 million expired vaccine doses were disposed of at the Magdeburg
waste-to-energy plant. As was taxpayer’s money … no, actually not, the
money just changed hands. Estimated profit for the pharmaceutical industry:
18 billion US dollars(230).
Actually, that was not quite the end of the fiasco. Almost forgotten today
is that one adjuvanted swine flu vaccine caused side effects that ruined
thousands of lives(231,232). The side effects were caused because antibodies
against the virus cross-reacted with a target in the brains of the victims. The
damage was the result of a classic antibody-driven autoimmune disease. The
side-effect was relatively rare. The incidence was probably something in the
order of 1 in 10,000, but the outcome was tragic because so many millions
received the vaccine, essentially for nothing, since the infection generally ran
a mild course. In retrospect, the risk-benefit ratio of swine flu vaccination
must be admitted to have been disastrous. This is what happens when mass
vaccination is undertaken without need.
78
8
Failure of the public media
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been
fooled. (MARK TWAIN)
In a working democracy, the media should provide the public with truthful
news, foster opinion formation through critique and discussion, and oversee
the action of the government as the “fourth public authority” with impartiality
and autonomy. What we have experienced during the coronavirus pandemic
is just the opposite(233).
All public broadcasters became servile mouthpieces of the government.
The press was no better. Regard for the truth, protection of human dignity,
service to the public – the Press Codex disappeared from the scene.
Worldwide.
Where was truthful information to be found?
And where were critical discussions of any information?
We were presented with disturbing pictures and frightening numbers –
morning, noon and night. Someone was always issuing a warning somewhere
– Drosten, Wieler, Spahn, Merkel. No one in the media ever critically
questioned these warnings or investigated their truth.
Scaring the population seemed to be the sole agenda(234). Reports on
millions of fatal casualties were presented without mention that they were
based on model calculations. No mention was made that Ferguson, the
producer of these numbers, had always been completely wrong in his
numerous doom-forecasting predictions.
79
At the same time, the media abstained from questioning how the RKI
numbers were compiled, what they meant and what could, or rather could
not, be gathered from them. Instead, the figures were uncritically accepted
and used to unsettle the public.
Where was the open discussion?
It could hardly have been more monotonous. Always the same “experts” – of
which there were apparently only two in Germany. Why was there never a
discussion between the government advisers and the critics like Dr Wolfgang
Wodarg, a lung specialist and board member of the anti-corruption
organisation “Transparency International” Germany? An open and objective
exchange: Drosten and Wieler and Bhakdi and Wodarg together at a roundtable
talk. Well, it did not hinge on Bhakdi or Wodarg or many other critics
of the government course. It was simply not wanted by the government.
There was much talk about how the Swedish way without lockdown was
being criticised by Swedish experts. That the German way was also
massively criticised by many knowledgeable citizens in their own country
was never a subject of discussion.
Besides Wodarg, the immunologist and toxicologist Professor Stefan
Hockertz pointed out early on that the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 should be
assessed similar to that of the common flu viruses, and that the implemented
measures were completely exaggerated. Also involved was Christof
Kuhbandner, a professor of psychology, who reiterated several times that
there was no scientific basis for these measures(235). How could he know,
people asked? The interesting thing is that any observant person with a
fundamental understanding of number theory can take the time to analyse the
statistics and come to the same conclusion. There are topics that span across
multiple disciplines. Dr Bodo Schiffmann, an ear-nose-and throat specialist
from Sinsheim, did the job that the journalists should have done. Almost
daily he posted videos on his YouTube channel with indefatigable energy and
persistence to inform the public on the latest developments and to explain the
numbers and why they were wrong.
The critical voices in this country were not alone, there were many others
worldwide(236,237). Was the public notified? It seemed to have been an easy
80
and successful strategy to simply not report these things; but such a stratagem
should have no place in an enlightened democratic state.
This synchronised “system journalism” was obviously apparent to
experts. Professor Otfried Jarren voiced his criticism in the
Deutschlandfunk(238). “For weeks now, the same male and female experts
and politicians make their appearance and are presented as the “crisis
managers”. But nobody asks who has which expertise and who appears in
which role. Furthermore, there are no debates among these experts, but only
individual statements.”
The numbers game
You can do a lot with numbers. Above all, you can make people afraid.
Example 1: infection rate. The infection rate was continuously increasing,
soon our health care system would collapse – what they didn’t say was that
the number of recovered people was also continuously increasing and that
there were no grounds for such an assumption. That remained a secret.
Example 2: mortality rate. “The US had the highest number of deaths
worldwide.” On May 28, the nightly news reports showed images of the
deceased: “They all died from COVID-19. With more than 100,000 deaths,
the US is mourning the highest number of victims worldwide.” Now we know
that a big fraction of these poor people did not die from COVID-19, but
rather from the measures taken against COVID-19.
Also, the US is the third largest country in the world. So perhaps it would
make more sense to look at the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants?
This number was relatively low – very much below the numbers from Spain
or Italy. Was that not worth mentioning? Furthermore, a good journalist
could also point out that the “number of deaths” is not an absolute value, not
the least because the counting methods are different for every country.
The country with the highest mortality rate per 100,000 citizens was
Belgium. The numbers were much higher than in Spain or Italy. Was the
situation there really so dramatic? No. As already shown, the basic problem
related to the method of counting(45). If such facts are not reported by the
media, then of course the numbers cannot be correctly assessed.
81
Defamation and discrediting
When critical voices were heard, immediate action was taken to silence them
by defamation. The lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg was the first to raise
his voice. The defamation campaign that followed was unparalleled.
As soon as we had published our first YouTube videos warning about the
excessive measures and pointed out that Italy might have other aggravating
factors, e.g. the high levels of air pollution), there was the first “facts-check”.
Under the headline “Why Sucharit Bhakdi’s numbers are wrong”, an article
was quickly put into the “ZDF Mediathek”. Nils Metzger supposedly gets to
the bottom if this(239): “Biology professor downplays coronavirus danger”. A
good starting point since the title immediately suggested that we were not
dealing with a medical doctor who had seen countless patients and was a
specialist in infection epidemiology, but with a biologist. And at some point
the classic situation whereby things are put into your mouth that you have
never said – just to discredit you. Metzger: “To present the factor air
pollution as the sole trigger for the crisis – as Sucharit Bhakdi did in his
video – is unscientific.” Naturally it was never once claimed anywhere that
the high number of victims was solely due to air pollution, because that
would indeed have been unscientific. This statement was a blatant lie. But
ARD/ZDF believers would hardly have made the effort to check the “real”
facts. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who think that things must
be true when they are reported by the public broadcasters. Sadly, that is not
the case.
Censorship of opinions
Article 5 of the German constitution:
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his
opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without
hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and
freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.
There shall be no censorship.
82
There is no place for critical opinions in either the public press or the public
broadcasts. The only alternative was by means of the social media, where the
public could be informed via YouTube videos. But even here, freedom of
expression is merely lip service. You can find quite a few videos that get
away unpunished even though they promote lies, hate and agitation.
YouTube apparently has no problem with those. However, an interview with
the Austrian TV station Servus TV about coronavirus was deleted. This
happened to a lot of videos that were critically involved in this topic. Susan
Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, said during an interview(240): “Everything that
violates the recommendations of the WHO would constitute a breach against
our guidelines. Therefore, deletion is another important part of our
guidelines.” The WHO that was responsible for the fake swine flu pandemic
in 2009; The WHO that overestimated the COVID-19 mortality on a large
scale, and drove the world into a crisis with this and other misjudgements?
This same WHO that now sets the standard on what can be said?
WhatsApp reacted as well. The forward function was restricted in order to
contain the distribution of Fake News during the coronavirus crisis. But who
exactly determines if news is fake? What if our own government distributes
Fake News? On March 14, the Ministry of Health warned via Twitter:
Attention FAKE NEWS! It is claimed and rapidly distributed that the Federal Ministry
of Health/Federal government will soon announce further massive restrictions to
public life. This is NOT true!
Two days later, on March 16, further massive restrictions to public life were
announced.
The English Professor John Oxford, one of the best-known virologists
worldwide, said the following about the coronavirus crisis(241): “Personally, I
would say the best advice is to spend less time watching TV news which is
sensational and not very good. Personally, I view this COVID outbreak as
akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. We are suffering from a media
epidemic!”
The German “good citizen” and the failure of politics
It is easier to believe a lie that you have heard a thousand times than to
83
believe a truth that you have only heard once (ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
We had a division within the country once before – during the refugee issue.
The opinions varied widely and there was talk about “good citizens”, the dogooders
and “angry citizens”, the not so do-gooders.
This time it is a lot worse. Friendships break apart. People face each other
with irreconcilable differences. They talk about each other, against each other
– but not with each other. Some are driven by worries about collateral
damages; others see themselves as advocates for the rights of the elderly who
are to be sacrificed for the economy.
Here is a commentary from a local paper after Chancellor Angela Merkel
addressed the nation with the decision to extend the lockdown:
“I was very relieved. Relieved, that we apparently did everything right
with our social distancing, our sacrifice by not meeting friends or visiting
family and all of that. I was very relieved that we will continue this in the
future”. Sadly, this is not an individual opinion. The media epidemic claimed
a lot of victims.
Eminent psychologist, Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, addressed this
issue(234):
“It is easy to trigger a fear of shock risks in people. These are situations
where a lot of people die suddenly in a very short time. This new coronavirus
could be such a shock risk, just the same as plane crashes, acts of terror or
other pandemics. If, however, deaths are spread out over a year, it hardly
scares us even if the number is significantly higher.”
Indeed. Without any measures having had any effect at all and at the end
of the epidemic, we are looking at far fewer than 10,000 so called
“coronavirus deaths” in Germany (Worldometers, July 2020).
In Germany, approximately 950,000 people die each year. Of those, more
than a third (350,000) die of cardiovascular diseases and 230,000 of
cancer(242).
Many of these 950,000 deaths could be prevented by information and
education, starting in schools and continuing for the general public, about the
importance of exercise and healthy diets, about the dangers of obesity and
many other issues. We could prevent thousands of deaths each year. And we
might also have fewer deaths from respiratory diseases, whereby a small
84
virus would not break the camel’s back, because that back would not be
strained to the breaking point. This applies not only to the coronaviruses but
to many other viruses and bacteria that have always done that and will
continue to do so in the future.
Why did our politicians fail?
After he had understood everything, a colleague exclaimed: “But how can
that be? It either means that our government and their advisers are
completely ignorant or incompetent – or, if they are not, there MUST be some
kind of intention behind it. How else can you possibly explain all this?”
Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from
1974 to 1982, was one of the last German politicians with class. He once
said: “The stupidity of governments should never be underestimated.” He
was right, of course, but THIS stupid? Really? One cannot and does not want
to believe that. Therefore, that only leaves the second question – what is the
intention behind all of this? And now politicians are wondering why
“conspiracy theorists” are springing up like mushrooms. Why did our
government ignore other opinions and make decisions haphazardly and
without a solid basis? Why did our government not act in the general interest
and for the good of the German people?
According to Johann Giesecke, politicians wanted to use the pandemic to
advance their own positions and were perfectly willing to implement
measures that were not scientifically substantiated(196). “Politicians want to
demonstrate their capacity to act, the capacity for decision making and most
of all their strength. My best example for this is that in Asian countries the
sidewalks are sprayed with chlorine. This is completely useless but it shows
that the state and the authorities are doing something, and that is very
important to politicians.” There are some indications from Austria that he
could be right in this:
During their crisis management, the Austrian government did not trust in
the expertise of their own advisers. An interview transcript later revealed that
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz was counting on fears rather than explanations
when implementing the rigid measures, which made it easier to get the public
to accept social and economic impositions(243).
85
The strategy document of the German Ministry of the Interior reveals that
the same agenda had been premeditated in this country(154).
Why was there so little criticism of the government’s course from the
economy?
The stock market professional, Dirk Müller, gave a persuasive explanation
why the pandemic was a blessing for many(244): in short, because it is always
the same story: Big companies win, small ones lose. Big corporations will
survive while many small and midsize companies as well as private
businesses will perish. Finance professor, Stefan Homburg, called it “the
largest redistribution of wealth in peacetime”. The loser would be the
taxpayer(245).
Why was there so little criticism from the scientists’ ranks?
Let’s not be naïve. Science is just as corrupt as politics. The European Union
provided 10 million euro for research on the novel coronavirus. Every Tom,
Dick and Harry who wanted to research this virus could apply for financing.
So very soon now we will have a lot of, possibly useless, information about
SARS-CoV-2 and under these circumstances it is not exactly helpful to point
out the relative harmlessness of the virus.
Conclusions:
the government is committed to serving the good of the citizens
the opposition is committed to oversee government action
the press is committed to inform the public by critical and truthful
reporting
those in the know (in this case physicians and scientists) are obligated to
raise their voice and demand evidence-based decisions
Every citizen who did not attend to his duties is an accomplice to the
collateral damage of the coronavirus crisis.
86
9
Quo vadis?
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all
the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time (ABRAHAM
LINCOLN)
The relevant authorities, our politicians and their advisers played truly
inglorious roles in the handling of new and supposedly dangerous infections
of the last decades, from BSE, swine flu, EHEC to COVID-19. At no point
did they learn from their mistakes, and this diminishes the hope that it will be
any different in the future. On the contrary! While we “only” redistributed
taxpayers’ money to the pharmaceutical industry during the swine flu, this
time livelihoods were destroyed, the constitution was trampled on and the
population basically deprived of their fundamental rights: freedom of speech
and opinion, freedom of movement, freedom of relocation, freedom of
assembly, freedom of actively practicing your religion, freedom to practice
your occupation and make a living.
Anchored in the constitution is the principle of proportionality: the State’s
interference with basic rights must be appropriate to reach the aspired goal.
And last but not least: the dignity of mankind must never be violated.
This ceased to be the case, to the detriment of democracy and civilisation.
It has been almost 90 years since the time in Germany when critical and
free journalism was abolished and the media transformed into the extended
arm of the state.
It has been almost 90 years since the time when freedom was abolished
and opinions of the public were forced into the political line.
It has been almost 90 years since the last media-driven mass hysteria.
87
If we have learned just one thing from the darkest times of our German
history, then surely this: We must never again be indifferent and look the
other way. Especially not when the government suspends our fundamental
democratic rights. This time, it was only a virus that knocked on our door, but
look what we had to go through as a consequence:
Media-fuelled mass hysteria
Arbitrary political decisions
Massive restrictions of fundamental rights
Censorship of freedom of expression
Enforced conformity of the media
Defamation of dissidents (the differently minded)
Denunciation
Dangerous human experiments
If that does not remind you of a dictatorship then you must have been sound
asleep during your history lessons. The things that remain with us are deep
concern and fear. Because so many intelligent and educated people became
like lemmings within a short three months, willing to obey the demands and
commands of the world elite.
The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt said(246): “We are all locked up.
In Nice there are drones that impose fines on people. How far has this
monitoring gotten? You have to read Hannah Arendt and look very closely at
the origins of totalitarianism at that time. If you scare the population, you
can do anything with it.”
Apparently, he is right. One thing is clear: there are many things that
should be worked through and we should all insist upon this happening. The
coronaviruses have retreated for this season, the issue is disappearing from
the headlines and from the public sphere – and soon it will be gone from
peoples’ memories.
If we, the people, do not demand that all transgressions of the coronavirus
politics are addressed, then those in power will be able to cover it all with a
cloak of concealment.
There is always the chance of some other threat knocking on our door.
The only positive thing that has come from this is that very many people in
our country have woken up. Many have realised that the mainstream media
88
and politicians can agree to support each other on things that are not good –
and even evil. One can only hope that the admonishing voices of reason will
in future not be silenced by the dark forces on this earth.
89
10
A farewell
Respiratory viruses are a major cause of mortality worldwide, with an
estimated 2–3 million deaths annually. Many viruses including influenza A
viruses, rhinoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza
viruses, adenoviruses and coronaviruses are responsible. Now, a new member
has joined the list. As with the others, the SARS-CoV-2 virus particularly
endangers the elderly with serious pre-existing conditions. Depending on the
country and region, 0.02 to 0.4% of these infections are fatal, which is
comparable to a seasonal flu. SARS-CoV-2 therefore must not be assigned
any special significance as a respiratory pathogen.
The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was never an epidemic of national concern.
Implementing the exceptional regulations of the Infection Protection Act
were and still are unfounded. In mid-April 2020, it was entirely evident that
the epidemic was coming to an end and that the inappropriate preventive
measures were causing irreparable collateral damage in all walks of life. Yet,
the government continues its destructive crusade against the spook virus,
thereby utterly disregarding the fundaments of true democracy.
And as you read these lines, human experiments are underway with genebased
vaccines whose ominous dangers have never been revealed to the
thousands of unknowing volunteers.
We are bearing witness to the downfall and destruction of our heritage, to
the end of the age of enlightenment.
May this little book awaken homo sapiens of this earth to rise and live up
to their name. And put an end to this senseless self-destruction.
90
References
(1) “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Weekly Epidemiological Update and Weekly Operational
Update,” World Health Organization, last accessed August 26, 2020, https://www.who.int
/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.
(2) Chih-Cheng Lai et al., “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and
Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): The Epidemic and the Challenges,” International
Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 55, no. 3 (March 2020): 105924, https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijantimicag.2020.105924.
(3) Catrin Sohrabi et al., “World Health Organization Declares Global Emergency: A Review of the
2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),” International Journal of Surgery 76 (April 2020): 71–
76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034.
(4) Shuo Su et al., “Epidemiology, Genetic Recombination, and Pathogenesis of Coronaviruses,”
Trends in Microbiology 24, no. 6 (June 2016): 490–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.03
.003.
(5) Jie Cui, Fang Li, and Zheng-Li Shi, “Origin and Evolution of Pathogenic Coronaviruses,”
Nature Reviews Microbiology 17 (2019): 181–92, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0118-9.
(6) Yanis Roussel et al., “SARS-CoV-2: Fear Versus Data,” International Journal of Antimicrobial
Agents 55, no. 5 (May 2020): 105947, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105947.
(7) David M. Patrick et al., “An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological
Cross-Reactivity with SARS Coronavirus,” Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and
Medical Microbiology 17, no. 6 (November–December 2006): 330–36, https://www.ncbi.nlm
.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096.
(8) Kelvin K. W. To et al., “From SARS to Coronavirus to Novel Animal and Human
Coronaviruses,” Journal of Thoracic Disease 5, no. S2 (August 2013): S103–8, http://doi.org/10
.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.06.02.
(9) “SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome),” National Health Service (UK), last reviewed
October 24, 2019, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars.
(10) “Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV),” World Health Organization,
(11) “COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic,” Worldometer, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus.
(12) Benjamin Reuter, “Coronavirus lässt in Italien Ärzte verzweifeln—Entscheidungen wie in
Kriegszeiten,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), March 12, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen
/drohen-in-deutschlanditalienische-verhaeltnisse-coronavirus-laesst-in-italienaerzteverzweifelnentscheidungen-
wie-in-kriegszeiten/25632790.html.
(13) Ciro Indolfi and Carmen Spaccarotella, “The Outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy: Fighting the
Pandemic,” JACC: Case Reports 2, no. 9 (July 2020): 1414–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas
.2020.03.012.
(14) Max Roser et al., “Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19),” Our World in Data, last updated
91
August 26, 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid.
(15) “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report—61,” World Health Organization,
March 20, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports
/20200321-sitrep-61-covid-19.pdf.
(16) Michael Day, “COVID-19: Four Fifths of Cases Are Asymptomatic, China Figures Indicate,”
BMJ 369, (April 2020): m1375, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1375.
(17) “Regeln zur Durchführung der ärztlichen Leichenschau,” AWMF Online (Germany), revised
January to October 2017, https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/054-002l_S1_Regelnzur-
Durchfuehrung-der-aerztlichen-Leichenschau_2018-02_01.pdf.
(18) Audrey Giraud-Gatineau et al., “Comparison of Mortality Associated with Respiratory Viral
Infections between December 2019 and March 2020 with That of the Previous Year in
Southeastern France,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 96 (July 2020): 154–56,
(19) Victor M. Corman et al., “Detection of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by Real-Time RTPCR,”
Eurosurveillance 25, no. 3 (January 2020): 2000045, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917
.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.
(20) Sonja Gurris, “Corona-Tests werden Geheimwaffe,” n-tv (Cologne), March 30, 2020, https://
http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Corona-Tests-werden-Geheimwaffe-article21678629.html.
(21) Christian Drosten, Twitter post, April 13, 2020, 4:42 p.m., https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status
/1249800091164192771.
(22) Australian Associated Press, “WHO Rejects Tanzania Claim Tests Faulty,” Examiner
(Launceston), May 8, 2020, https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6749732/who-rejects-tanzaniaclaim-
tests-faulty.
(23) Yafang Li et al., “Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 for Hospitalized Patients
Clinically Diagnosed with COVID-19,” Journal of Medical Virology 92, no. 7 (July 2020): 903–
8, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25786.
(24) Gurris, “Corona-Tests werden Geheimwaffe.”
(25) Ines Nastali, “Police Intervenes on Quarantined Mein Schiff 3,” Safety at Sea, May 6, 2020,
(26) “Wenig Infektionen beim Charité-Personal,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), May 13, 2020,
(27) John P. A. Ioannidis, “Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Harms of Exaggerated Information and
Non-Evidence-Based Measures,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50, no. 4 (April
2020): e13222, https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13222.
(28) Sucharit Bhakdi, open letter to Angela Merkel, March 26, 2020, PDF available to download until
March 31, 2021, https://c.gmx.net/@824224682608695698/cI1TagSeQmi0WlXK-m8vWA.
(29) Patrick Gensing and Markus Grill, “40 Prozent mehr Tests in Deutschland,” Tagesschau
(Hamburg), May 6, 2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/corona-tests-rki-101.html.
(30) Julia Bernewasser, “Das sind die ersten Lehren der Heinsberg-Studie,” Der Tagesspeigel
(Berlin), April 9, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/zwischenergebnis-zurcoronavirusuebertragung-
das-sind-die-ersten-lehrenderheinsberg-studie/25730138.html.
(31) Paula Schneider, “‘Unwissenschaftlich’: Statistikerin zerlegt Heinsberg-Studie, auf die sich
Laschet stützt,” Focus (Munich), April 15, 2020, https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/hoffedass-
wir-darausnur-wenig-ueber-corona-lernen-statistikerin-zerlegtheinsbergstudie-keinetransparenz-
kein-wissenschaftlicher-standard_id_11881853.html.
(32) Hendrik Streeck et al., “Infection Fatality Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a German
Community with a Super-Spreading Event,” preprint, medRxiv, June 2, 2020, https://doi.org/10
.1101/2020.05.04.20090076.
92
(33) “Field Briefing: Diamond Princess COVID-19 Cases,” National Institute of Infectious Diseases
(Japan), February 19, 2020, https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9407-covid-dpfe-01
.html.
(34) Kenji Mizumoto et al., “Estimating the Asymptomatic Proportion of Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) Cases on Board the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020,”
Eurosurveillance 25, no. 10 (March 2020): 20000180, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES
.2020.25.10.2000180.
(35) Tara John, “Iceland Lab’s Testing Suggests 50% of Coronavirus Cases Have No Symptoms,”
CNN, April 3, 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl
/index.html.
(36) Rongrong Yang, Xien Gui, and Yong Xiong, “Comparison of Clinical Characteristics of Patients
with Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,” JAMA
Network Open 3, no. 5 (May 2020): e2010182, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020
.10182.
(37) “Erster Todesfall in Schleswig-Holstein,” Der Spiegel, March 17, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de
/wissenschaft/coronavirus-erster-todesfall-in-schleswig-holstein-a-6db5f0b0-b662-45b0-bdb4-
603684d4dc92.
(38) Bettina Mittelacher, “Mediziner: Alle Corona-Toten in Hamburg waren vorerkrankt,” Berliner
Morgenpost, April 27, 2020, https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article228994571
/Rechtsmediziner-Alle-Corona-Toten-hattenVorerkrankungen.html.
(39) Dominic Wichmann et al., “Autopsy Findings and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with
COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine 173, no. 4 (August
2020): 268–77, https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2003.
(40) Nikita Jolkver, “Coronavirus: Was die Toten über COVID-19 verraten,” DW Akademie (Bonn),
April 30, 2020, https://p.dw.com/p/3baZF.
(41) SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Group, Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Patients Dying in Italy, report
based on available data on July 9, 2020, https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/bollettino
/Report-COVID-2019_9_july_2020.pdf.
(42) O. Haferkamp and H. Matthys, “Grippe und Lungenembolien,” Deutsche Medizinische
Wochenschrift 95, no. 51 (1970): 2560–63, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1108874.
(43) Sarah Newey, “Why Have So Many Coronavirus Patients Died in Italy?,” Telegraph, March 23,
2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronaviruspatients-
died-italy.
(44) Gregory Beals, “Official Coronavirus Death Tolls Are Only an Estimate, and That Is a Problem,”
NBC News, April 15, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/official-coronavirus-deathtolls-
are-only-estimate-problem-n1183756.
(45) Karolina Meta Beisel, “Warum Belgien die höchste Todesrate weltweit hat,” Tages-Anzeiger
(Zurich), April 22, 2020, https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/warum-belgien-die-hoechstetodesrateweltweit-
hat-825753123788.
(46) John P. A. Ioannidis, Cathrine Axfors, and Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, “Population-
Level COVID-19 Mortality Risk for Non-Elderly Individuals Overall and for Non-Elderly
Individuals without Underlying Diseases in Pandemic Epicenters,” Environmental Research 188
(September 2020): 109890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109890.
(47) “GrippeWeb,” Robert Koch-Instituts, https://grippeweb.rki.de.
(48) “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report—46,” World Health Organization,
March 6, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports
/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf.
(49) “Häufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten zur Grippe,” Robert Koch-Instituts, updated January 30,
93
2019, https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Influenza/FAQ_Liste.html.
(50) “30 000 Tote—die kann’s auch bei saisonaler Grippe geben,” Ärzte-Zeitung (Neu-Isenburg),
September 3, 2009, https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Medizin/30000-Tote-die-kannsauch-beisaisonaler-
Grippe-geben-371174.html.
(51) “Grippewelle war tödlichste in 30 Jahren,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), September 30, 2019,
(52) “Gesundheitsministerin erklärt Grippewelle 2018 in Bayern für beendet,” Augsburger
Allgemeine, May 10, 2018, https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/wissenschaft
/Gesundheitsministerin-erklaert-Grippewelle-2018-in-Bayernfuerbeendet-id42750551.html.
(53) World Health Organization, “Up to 650 000 People Die of Respiratory Diseases Linked to
Seasonal Flu Each Year,” news release, December 13, 2017, https://www.who.int/mediacentre
/news/statements/2017/flu/en.
(54) Euronews, “Coronavirus in Deutschland: Sterberate steigt, RKI erwartet zweite welle,”
Euronews (Lyon), May 5, 2020, https://de.euronews.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-indeutschland-
sterberate-steigt-rki-erwartet-zweite-welle.
(55) Silvia Stringhini et al., “Repeated Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies in a
Population-Based Sample from Geneva, Switzerland,” preprint, medRxiv, May 6, 2020, https://
doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.02.20088898.
(56) Asako Doi et al., “Estimation of Seroprevalence of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
Using Preserved Serum at an Outpatient Setting in Kobe, Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study,”
preprint, medRxiv, May 5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822.
(57) Alberto L. Garcia-Basteiro et al., “Seroprevalence of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Among
Health Care Workers in a Large Spanish Reference Hospital,” preprint, medRxiv, May 2, 2020,
(58) “Coronavirus: los primeros datos de seroprevalencia estiman que un 5% de la población ha
estado contagiada, con variabilidad según provincias,” Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Gobierno de
España, May 13, 2020, https://www.isciii.es/Noticias/Noticias/Paginas/Noticias
/PrimerosDatosEstudioENECOVID19.aspx.
(59) Kieran Corcoran, “A Test of 200 People Just outside Boston Found That 32% Had Been
Exposed to the Coronavirus, Compared to an Official Rate of 2%,” Business Insider, April 19,
2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-test-200-chelsea-massachusetts-finds-32-
percent-exposed-2020-4.
(60) John Ioannidis, “The Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 Inferred from Seroprevalence Data,”
preprint, medRxiv, July 14, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253.
(61) Maryam Shakiba et al., “Seroprevalence of COVID-19 Virus Infection in Guilan Province, Iran,”
preprint, medRxiv, May 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244.
(62) Eran Bendavid et al., “COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California,”
preprint, medRxiv, posted April 30, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463.
(63) Christian Erikstrup et al., “Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Fatality Rate by Real-Time
Antibody Screening of Blood Donors,” Clinical Infectious Diseases ciaa849 (June 2020):
(64) Fadoua Balabdaoui and Dirk Mohr, “Age-Stratified Model of the COVID-19 Epidemic to
Analyze the Impact of Relaxing Lockdown Measures: Nowcasting and Forecasting for
Switzerland,” preprint, medRxiv, May 13, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.08.20095059.
(65) “Preliminary Results of USC-LA County COVID-19 Study Released,” University of Southern
California, April 20, 2020, https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-county-covid
-19-study-released.
(66) Lionel Roques et al., “Using Early Data to Estimate the Actual Infection Fatality Ratio from
94
COVID-19 in France,” Biology 9, no. 5 (May 2020): 97, https://doi.org/10.3390
/biology9050097.
(67) Carson C. Chow et al., “Global Prediction of Unreported SARS-CoV2 Infection from Observed
COVID-19 Cases,” preprint, medRxiv, May 5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29
.20083485.
(68) Siuli Mukhopadhyay and Debraj Chakraborty, “Estimation of Undetected COVID-19 Infections
in India,” preprint, medRxiv, May 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.20072892.
(69) Robert Verity et al., “Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-Based
Analysis,” Lancet: Infectious Diseases 20, no. 6 (June 2020): 669–77, https://doi.org/10.1016
/S1473-3099(20)30243-7.
(70) Kenji Mizumoto, Katsushi Kagaya, and Gerardo Chowell, “Early Epidemiological Assessment
of the Transmission Potential and Virulence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in
Wuhan City, China, January–February, 2020,” BMC Medicine 18 (2020): article 217, https://doi
.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01691-x.
(71) Timothy W. Russell et al., “Estimating the Infection and Case Fatality Ratio for Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-19) Using Age-Adjusted Data from the Outbreak on the Diamond Princess
Cruise Ship, February 2020,” Eurosurveillance 25, no. 12 (March 2020): 2000256, https://doi
.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256.
(72) “Komplikationen,” Lungenärzte im Netz, https://www.lungenaerzte-im-netz.de/krankheiten
/grippe/komplikationen.
(73) “103-jährige Italienerin erholt sich von COVID-19,” Donaukurier (Ingolstadt), updated April 16,
2020, video, https://www.donaukurier.de/nachrichten/panorama/103-jaehrige-Italienerin-erholtsich-
von-COVID-19;art154670,4548023.
(74) Jason Oke and Carl Heneghan, “Global COVID-19 Case Fatality Rates,” Oxford COVID-19
Evidence Service, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, updated June 9, 2020, https://www
.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates.
(75) “113-jährige Spanierin überlebt Coronavirus-Infektion,” GMX, May 13, 2020, https://www.gmx
.net/magazine/panorama/113-jaehrigespanierin-ueberlebt-coronavirus-infektion-34698438.
(76) “SARS-CoV-2 Steckbrief zur Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19),” Robert Koch-Institut,
updated August 21, 2020, https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus
/Steckbrief.html.
(77) “Amtliches Dashboard COVID19,” Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und
Konsumentenschutz, https://info.gesundheitsministerium.at/dashboard_GenTod.html.
(78) “COVID-19 Daily Deaths,” National Health Service (UK), https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics
/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths.
(79) Kathryn A. Myers and Donald R. E. Farquhar, “Improving the Accuracy of Death Certification,”
CMAJ 158, no. 10 (May 1998): 1317–23, https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/158/10/1317.full
.pdf.
(80) Sandy McDowell, “Understanding Cancer Death Rates,” American Cancer Society, January 25,
2019, https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/understanding-cancer-death-rates.html.
(81) Yoon K. Loke and Carl Heneghan, “Why No-One Can Ever Recover from COVID-19 in
England—A Statistical Anomaly,” Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, July 16, 2020, https://
(82) “Corona—Blog,” Krefeld, https://www.krefeld.de/de/inhalt/corona-aktuelle-meldungen/.
(83) Victor G. Puelles et al., “Multiorgan and Renal Tropism of SARS-CoV-2,” New England
Journal of Medicine 383 (August 2020): 590–92, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2011400.
(84) David Bainton, Glynne R. Jones, and David Hole, “Influenza and Ischaemic Heart Disease—A
95
Possible Trigger for Acute Myocardial Infarction?,” International Journal of Epidemiology 7,
no. 3 (September 1978): 231–39, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/7.3.231.
(85) Hiroshi Kido et al., “Role of Host Cellular Proteases in the Pathogenesis of Influenza and
Influenza-Induced Multiple Organ Failure,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Proteins
and Proteomics 1824, no. 1 (January 2012): 186–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2011.07
.001.
(86) Debby van Riel, Rob Verdijk, and Thijs Kuiken, “The Olfactory Nerve: A Shortcut for Influenza
and Other Viral Diseases into the Central Nervous System,” Journal of Pathology 235, no. 2
(January 2015): 277–87, https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4461.
(87) Camilla Rothe et al., “Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in
Germany,” New England Journal of Medicine 382 (March 2020): 970–71, https://doi.org/10
.1056/NEJMc2001468.
(88) Kai Kupferschmidt, “Study Claiming New Coronavirus Can Be Transmitted by People without
Symptoms Was Flawed,” Science, February 3, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02
/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong.
(89) Russell M. Viner et al., “School Closure and Management Practices During Coronavirus
Outbreaks Including COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review,” Lancet 4, no. 5 (May 2020):
397–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X.
(90) Pamela Dörhöfer, “Italien leidet unter dem Coronavirus: Sterberate ist erschreckend hoch,”
Frankfurter Rundschau, April 14, 2020, https://www.fr.de/panorama/coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2-
sterberate-italien-deutlich-hoeher-rest-welt-zr-13604897.html.
(91) Ernesto Diffidenti, “Coronavirus, i contagiati reali in Italia sono almeno 100mila,” Il Sole 24 Ore
(Milan), March 17, 2020, https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/coronavirus-contagiati-realiin-italiasono-
almeno-100mila-ADnzowD.
(92) Kat Lay, “Coronavirus: Record Weekly Death Toll as Fearful Patients Avoid Hospitals,” Times
(UK), April 15, 2020, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-record-weeklydeath-tollas-
fearful-patients-avoid-hospitals-bm73s2tw3.
(93) Paul Nuki, “Two New Waves of Deaths Are about to Break over the NHS, New Analysis
Warns,” Telegraph, April 25, 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-anddisease/
two-new-waves-deaths-break-nhs-new-analysis-warns.
(94) Ceylan Yeinsu, “N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait,” New York Times,
January 3, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service
.html.
(95) Denis Campbell, “Health Services Overloaded Despite Support Pledges, Claims Report,”
Guardian (US edition), May 20, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/21
/health-services-overloaded-despite-support-pledges-claims-report.
(96) Michael Savage, “NHS Winter Crisis Fears Grow after Thousands of EU Staff Quit,” Guardian
(US edition), November 24, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/24/nhswinter-
crisis-thousands-eu-staff-quit.
(97) Amanda MacMillan, “Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents,”
Time, January 18, 2018, https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flupatients.
(98) Helen Branswell, “A Severe Flu Season Is Stretching Hospitals Thin. That Is a Very Bad
Omen,” STAT, January 15, 2018, https://www.statnews.com/2018/01/15/flu-hospital-pandemics.
(99) “Coronavirus Fact-Check #1: ‘COVID19 Is Having an Unprecedented Impact on ICUs,”
OffGuardian, April 2, 2020, https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/02/coronavirus-fact-check-1-fludoesnt-
overwhelm-our-hospitals.
(100) R. Salamanca, “La gripe colapsa los hospitales de media España,” El Mundo (Madrid), January
12, 2017, https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia/2017/01/12/58767cb4268e3e1f448b459a.html.
96
(101) Daniel Ventura, “¿Por qué la gripe significa colapso en los hospitales españoles?,” HuffPost
(Spain edition), January 13, 2017, https://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/01/13/gripecolapsohospitales_
n_14135402.html.
(102) Simona Ravizza, “Milano, terapie intensive al collasso per l’influenza: già 48 malati gravi molte
operazioni rinviate,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), January 10, 2018, https://milano.corriere.it
/notizie/cronaca/18_gennaio_10/milano-terapie-intensive-collasso-l-influenza-gia-48-malatigravi-
molte-operazioni-rinviate-c9dc43a6-f5d1-11e7-9b06-fe054c3be5b2.shtml.
(103) Christian Baars, “Mehr Tote durch resistente Keime,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), November 18,
2019, https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/antibiotika-keime-resistent-101.html.
(104) “Europäische Union: Altersstruktur in den Mitgliedsstaaten im Jahr 2019,” Statista, March 2020,
(105) Savannah Blank, “Wieso sterben in Italien so viele an COVID-19 und wieso sind so viele
infiziert?,” Südwest Presse (Ulm), April 30, 2020, https://www.swp.de/panorama/coronavirusitalien-
aktuellwieso-sterben-in-italien-so-viele-an-corona-wieso-hat-italiensoviele-infiziertezahlen-
tote-gruende-45080326.html.
(106) Stefania Boccia, Walter Ricciardi, and John P. A. Ioannidis, “What Other Countries Can Learn
from Italy During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” JAMA Internal Medicine 180, no. 7 (July 2020):
927–28, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1447.
(107) Paul Kreiner, “Beim Smog ist Italien das China Europas,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), December
2, 2015, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/luftverschmutzung-beim-smog-istitalien-
daschinaeuropas/12668866.html.
(108) Marco Martuzzi et al., Health Impact of PM10 and Ozone in 13 Italian Cities (Copenhagen:
World Health Organization, 2006), http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/91110
/E88700.pdf.
(109) Daniel P. Croft et al., “The Association between Respiratory Infection and Air Pollution in the
Setting of Air Quality Policy and Economic Change,” Annals of the American Thoracic Society
16, no. 3 (March 2019): https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201810-691OC.
(110) Xiao Wu et al., “Exposure to Air Pollution and COVID-19 Mortality in the United States: A
Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study,” preprint, medRxiv, April 27, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101
/2020.04.05.20054502.
(111) Susanne Pfaller and Matthias Lauer, “Trauer in Corona-Zeiten: Mehr Anzeigen und
Feuerbestattungen,” Bayerischer Rundfunk, April 29, 2020, https://www.br.de/nachrichten
/bayern/trauer-in-corona-zeitenmehr-anzeigen-und-feuerbestattungen,RxZCWs0.
(112) Katja Thorwarth, “New Yorker Notarzt über Corona-Krise in der Bronx: „Manchmal 200
Erkrankungen in einem Stockwerk,“” Frankfurter Rundschau, May 14, 2020, https://www.fr.de
/politik/coronavirus-corona-krise-usanotarzt-lage-new-york-bronx-zr-13762623.html.
(113) Lucia De Franceschi et al., “Acute Hemolysis by Hydroxycloroquine Was Observed in G6PDDeficient
Patient with Severe COVID-19 Related Lung Injury,” European Journal of Internal
Medicine 77 (July 2020): 136–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2020.04.020.
(114) “Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency,” Genetics Home Reference, National
Institutes of Health, August 17, 2020, https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/glucose-6-phosphatedehydrogenase-
deficiency#statistics.
(115) “Charité-Chefvirologe warnt vor dramatischer Corona-Welle im Herbst,” BZ (Berlin), updated
April 1, 2020, https://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/charite-chefvirologe-warnt-vor-dramatischercorona-
welle-im-herbst.
(116) Dominik Straub, “Letalität in Deutschland 30-mal niedriger als in Italien – wie ist das
möglich?,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), March 11, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik
/coronavirus-in-europaletalitaet-in-deutschland-30-mal-niedriger-als-in-italien-wieistdas-
97
moeglich/25626678.html.
(117) BMG, Twitter post, March 14, 2020, 6:55 a.m., https://twitter.com/bmg_bund/status
/1238780849652465664.
(118) “Coronavirus Restrictions: What’s Closed (and What’s Open) in Germany?,” Local (German
edition), updated March 20, 2020, https://www.thelocal.de/20200316/coronavirus-restrictionswhats-
closed-and-whats-open-in-germany.
(119) John P. A. Ioannidis, “A Fiasco in the Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We
Are Making Decisions without Reliable Data,” STAT, March 17, 2020, https://www.statnews
.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-aremaking-
decisions-without-reliable-data.
(120) Christian Baars, “Radikale Maßnahmen für viele Monate?,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), March 17,
2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr/coronavirus-studie-london-101.html.
(121) Matt Ridley and David Davis, “Is the Chilling Truth That the Decision to Impose Lockdown
Was Based on Crude Mathematical Guesswork?,” Telegraph, May 10, 2020, https://www
.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/10/chilling-truth-decision-impose-lockdown-based-crudemathematical.
(122) “„Exponentielles Wachstum“: RKI mahnt eindringlich zum Abstandhalten,” Deutsches
Ärzteblatt (Berlin), March 20, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111209
/Exponentielles-Wachstum-RKI-mahnt-eindringlich-zum-Abstandhalten.
(123) Matthias an der Heiden and Udo Buchholz, Modellierung von Beispielszenarien der SARS-CoV-
2-Epidemie 2020 in Deutschland, Robert Koch Institut, March 20, 2020, https://doi.org/10
.25646/6571.2.
(124) “Deutsche Krankenhäuser nehmen COVID-19-Patienten aus Italien und Frankreich auf,”
Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), March 24, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111286
/Deutsche-Krankenhaeuser-nehmen-COVID-19-Patienten-aus-Italien-undFrankreich-auf.
(125) “„Verdopplungszeit“ zehn Tage—So weit ist Deutschland von Merkels Ziel entfernt,” Welt
(Berlin), March 3, 2020, https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article206895285/Coronavirus
-So-weit-ist-Deutschland-von-Merkels-Zielvorgabeentfernt.html.
(126) Ulrich Stoll and Christian Rohde, “Zwischen ‘schneller Kontrolle’ und ‘Anarchie,’” ZDF Heute
(Mainz), March 31, 2020, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/f21-corona-dokumentinnenministerium-
100.html.
(127) Thomas Steinmann, “Innenministerium warnt vor Wirtschaftscrash,” Capital (Hamburg), April
1, 2020, https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-politik/innenministerium-warnt-vor-wirtschaftscrash.
(128) Matthias an der Heiden and Osamah Hamouda, “Schätzung der aktuellen Entwicklung der
SARS-CoV-2-Epidemie in Deutschland—Nowcasting,” Epidemiologisches Bulletin 17, (April
2020): 10–16, https://doi.org/10.25646/6692.4.
(129) Christian Geinitz, “„In den Kliniken stehen Tausende Betten leer“,” Frankfurter Allgemeine,
updated April 15, 2020, https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/fehlplanung-der-politikin-denkliniken-
stehen-betten-leer-16725981.html.
(130) Using Face Masks in the Community (Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control, 2020), https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-facemasks-
community.pdf.
(131) Samy Rengasamy, Benjamin Eimer, and Ronald E. Shaffer, “Simple Respiratory Protection—
Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against
20–1000 nm Size Particles,” Annals of Occupational Hygiene 54, no. 7 (October 2010): 789–98,
(132) C. Raina MacIntyre et al., “A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical
Masks in Healthcare Workers,” BMJ Open 5, no. 4 (2015): e006577, https://doi.org/10.1136
98
/bmjopen-2014-006577.
(133) “Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19,” World Health Organization, June 5,
2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-communityduring-
home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-
ncov)-outbreak.
(134) Timo Mitze et al., Face Masks Considerably Reduce COVID-19 Cases in Germany: A Synthetic
Control Method Approach (Bonn, Germ.: Institute of Labor Economics, 2020), http://ftp.iza.org
/dp13319.pdf.
(135) Udo Buchholz, Silke Buda, and Kerstin Prahm, “Abrupter Rückgang der Raten an
Atemwegserkrankungen in der deutschen Bevölkerung,” Epidemiologisches Bulletin 16 (April
2020): 7–9, https://doi.org/10.25646/6636.2.
(136) Denis G. Rancourt, “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social
Policy,” River Cities’ Reader (IA), June 11, 2020, https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks
-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy.
(137) Pietro Vernazza, “Atemschutzmasken für alle—Medienhype oder unverzichtbar?,” Klinik für
Infektiologie/Spitalhygiene, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, April 5, 2020, https://infekt.ch/2020/04
/atemschutzmasken-fuer-alle-medienhype-oder-unverzichtbar.
(138) Klaus Wedekind, “Drosten warnt vor zweiter Corona-Welle,” n-tv (Cologne), April 20, 2020,
(139) Joachim Czichos, “Erst Bakterien führten zur tödlichen Katastrophe,” Welt (Berlin), August 11,
2008, https://www.welt.de/gesundheit/article2295849/Erst-Bakterienfuehrten-zur-toedlichen-
Katastrophe.html.
(140) Marie E. Killerby et al., “Human Coronavirus Circulation in the United States 2014–2017,”
Journal of Clinical Virology 101 (April 2018): 52–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2018.01.019.
(141) Mika J. Mäkelä et al., “Viruses and Bacteria in the Etiology of the Common Cold,” Journal of
Clinical Microbiology 36, no. 2 (February 1998): 539–42, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.36.2.539
-542.1998.
(142) “Was Sie über die Grafik wissen sollten, über die Deutschland spricht,” Welt (Berlin), April 26,
2020, https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article207456203/Coronavirus-Stefan-Homburg-unddie-
Grafik-ueber-die-Deutschlandspricht.html.
(143) “Virologe Drosten warnt: Deutsche könnten Corona-Vorsprung verspielen,” Stern, video, 1:04,
April 23, 2020, https://www.stern.de/gesundheit/news-im-video–drosten-warnt—deutschekoennten-
corona-vorsprungverspielen9236028.html.
(144) “RKI warnt in Coronavirus-Krise: Reproduktionszahl wieder über kritischem Wert 1,” MSN
(Germany), May 10, 2020, https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichten/coronavirus/rkiwarnt-incoronavirus-
krise-reproduktionszahl-wiederüberkritischem-wert-1/ar-BB13RlEi.
(145) “Sterbefallzahlen in Deutschland steigen an,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 30, 2020, https://www
.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/coronavirenuebersterblichkeit-COVID-19-statistischesbundesamt-1
.4893709.
(146) Jürgen Mladek, “Seehofer stellt Corona-Kritiker kalt,” Nordkurier (Neubrandenburg), May 14,
2020, https://www.nordkurier.de/politik-und-wirtschaft/seehofer-stellt-corona-kritiker-kalt-
1439370305.html.
(147) Seth Flaxman et al., “Estimating the Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19
in Europe,” Nature 584 (2020): 257–61, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7.
(148) Comments section below Flaxman et al., “Estimating the Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical
Interventions,” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7#article-comments.
(149) “Why Is Denmark Not Recommending Face Masks to the Public?,” Local (Denmark), May 11,
2020, https://www.thelocal.dk/20200511/why-is-denmark-not-recommending-face-masks-to-the
99
-public.
(150) Hildburg Bruns, “Berlins erste Corona-Klinik,” Bild (Berlin), May 11, 2020, https://www.bild.de
/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/corona-klinik-in-berlin-fertig-knapp-500-betten-im-stand-bymodus-
70577074.bild.html.
(151) Uwe Janssens, “„Wir haben genug Intensivbetten“,” interview by Arndt Reuning,
Deutschlandfunk (Cologne), March 11, 2020, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/coronanotfallplaene-
inkrankenhaeusern-wir-habengenug.676.de.html?dram:article_id=472287.
(152) “Überlastung deutscher Krankenhäuser durch COVID-19 laut Experten unwahrscheinlich,”
Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), March 12, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111029
/Ueberlastungdeutscher-Krankenhaeuser-durch-COVID-19-lautExpertenunwahrscheinlich.
(153) Barbara Gillmann, “RKI: Zahl der Intensivbetten wird nicht reichen,” Handelsblatt (Düsseldorf),
April 3, 2020, https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/corona-epidemie-rki-zahl-derintensivbetten-
wirdnichtreichen/25712008.html?ticket=ST-3691123-xCgN9jb0yWPZsyeB97s7-
ap5.
(154) Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, Wie wir COVID-19 unter Kontrolle
bekommen, March 2020, https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE
/veroeffentlichungen/2020/corona/szenarienpapier-covid-19.pdf;jsessionid
=8FAD89A1832ABFC4DB485C5625C8DE71.2_cid295?__blob=publicationFile&v=4.
(155) Elena Kuch, Jennifer Lange, and Christoph Prössl, “Kurzarbeit trotz Rettungsschirm,”
Tagesschau (Hamburg), April 22, 2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr
/krankenhaeuser-kurzarbeit-101.html.
(156) Kim Norvell and Jayne O’Donnell, “Thousands of US Medical Workers Furloughed, Laid Off as
Routine Patient Visits Drop During Coronavirus Pandemic,” USA Today, updated April 2, 2020,
workersfurloughedlaid-off/5102320002.
(157) Kit Knightly, “COVID19: Are Ventilators Killing People?,” OffGuardian, May 6, 2020, https://
off-guardian.org/2020/05/06/covid19-are-ventilators-killing-people.
(158) “COVID-19: Beatmung—und dann?,” DocCheck, March 31, 2020, https://www.doccheck.com
/de/detail/articles/26271-COVID-19-beatmung-und-dann.
(159) Martin Gould, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s a Horror Movie.’ Nurse Working on Coronavirus Frontline
in New York Claims the City Is ‘Murdering’ COVID-19 Patients by Putting Them on
Ventilators and Causing Trauma to the Lungs,” Daily Mail, updated May 14, 2020, https://www
.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8262351/Nurse-New-York-claims-city-killing-COVID-19-
patientsputtingventilators.html.
(160) Jochen Taßler and Jan Schmitt, “Mehr Schaden als Nutzen?,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), April 30,
2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/monitor/beatmung-101.html.
(161) “„Es wird zu häufig intubiert und invasiv beatmet“,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 7,
2020, https://www.vpneumo.de/fileadmin/pdf/f2004071.007_Voshaar.pdf.
(162) Kristin Kielon, “So Funktioniert Künstliche Beatmung,” Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Leipzig),
March 24, 2020, https://www.mdr.de/wissen/so-funktioniert-beatmung-intensivstation-corona-
100.html.
(163) “Modes of Transmission of Virus Causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC Precaution
Recommendations,” World Health Organization, March 29, 2020, https://www.who.int/newsroom/
commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-foripc-
precaution-recommendations.
(164) Neeltje van Doremalen et al., “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with
SARS-CoV-1,” New England Journal of Medicine 382 (April 2020): 1564–67, https://doi.org/10
.1056/NEJMc2004973.
100
(165) Young-Il Kim et al., “Infection and Rapid Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Ferrets,” Cell Host
& Microbe 27, no. 5 (May 2020): 704–9.e2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.03.023.
(166) Matthias Thöns, “„Sehr falsche Prioritäten gesetzt und alle ethischen Prinzipien verletzt“,”
interview by Peter Sawicki, Deustchlandfunk, April 11, 2020, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de
/palliativmedizinerzu-COVID-19-behandlungen-sehrfalsche.694.de.html?dram:article_id
=474488.
(167) David L. Katz, “Is Our Fight against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?,” New York Times,
March 20, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronaviruspandemic-socialdistancing.
html.
(168) CNN, “‘We are creating a catastrophic health care situation,’” Facebook post, video, 6:09, May
2, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/cnn/posts/10160799274796509.
(169) Scott W. Atlas, “The Data Is In—Stop the Panic and End the Total Isolation,” The Hill
(Washington, DC), April 22, 2020, https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in
-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation.
(170) Robert Birnbaum and Georg Ismar, “Schäuble will dem Schutz des Lebens nicht alles
unterordnen,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), April 26, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik
/bundestagspraesident-zurcorona-krise-schaeuble-will-dem-schutz-des-lebensnichtallesunterordnen/
25770466.html.
(171) Miriam Kruse, “Menschenleben versus Menschenwürde?,” SWR Aktuell, April 27, 2020, https://
http://www.swr.de/swraktuell/schaueble-wertediskussion-zu-corona-100.html.
(172) Andy Sumner, Chris Hoy, and Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez, “Estimates of the Impact of COVID-19 on
Global Poverty,” (working paper, United Nations University World Institute for Development
Economics Research, 2020), https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/estimates-impact-covid-19-
global-poverty.
(173) “Amerikas Wirtschaftsleistung sinkt um bis zu 30 Prozent,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, updated
May 18, 2020, https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/usa-notenbank-federwartet-dramatischeneinbruch-
der-wirtschaft-16774864.html.
(174) Ines Zöttl, “US-Arbeitsmarkt in der Coronakrise: US-Arbeitsmarkt in der Coronakrise,” Spiegel
(Hamburg), May 9, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/corona-krise-in-den-usa-der-auftakt
-der-tragoedie-a-532f7a6b-3a0d-4a8f-a38d-db91ead7990b.
(175) “EU vor Rezession von ‘historischem Ausmaß,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), May 6, 2020, https://
http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/corona-eurozone-rezession-101.html.
(176) Benjamin Bidder, “‘Das wird ein Zangenangriff auf Deutschlands Wholstand,’” Spiegel
(Hamburg), May 17, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/corona-krise-das-wird-einzangenangriff-
auf-deutschlands-wohlstand-a-eaf27caa-342d-4aca-bcb1-e84b15ca5a2d.
(177) Britta Beeger, “Warum die Arbeitslosigkeit steigt,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, May 4, 2020,
16753941.html.
(178) “Kampf gegen Corona: Größtes Hilfspaket in der Geschichte Deutschlands,” Bundesministerium
der Finanzen, May 22, 2020, https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE
/Standardartikel/Themen/Schlaglichter/Corona-Schutzschild/2020-03-13-Milliarden-
Schutzschild-fuer-Deutschland.html.
(179) Mallory Simon, “75,000 Americans at Risk of Dying from Overdose or Suicide Due to
Coronavirus Despair, Group Warns,” CTV News (Ottawa), May 8, 2020, https://www.ctvnews
.ca/health/coronavirus/75-000-americans-at-risk-of-dying-from-overdose-or-suicide-due-tocoronavirus-
despair-group-warns-1.4930801.
(180) Agence France-Presse, “Australia Fears Suicide Spike Due to Virus Shutdown,” Telegraph, May
7, 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/07/australia-fears-suicide-spike-due-virus-
101
shutdown.
(181) “Mehr Tote durch Schlaganfälle, Infarkte und Suizide erwartet,” BZ (Berlin), May 7, 2020,
und-suizide-erwartet.
(182) Catharine Paddock, “Heart Attack Risk Higher with Job Loss,” Medical News Today, November
20, 2012, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252985.
(183) Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup, “Warum in der Coronakrise nicht nur das Virus die Gesundheit
gefährdet,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), May 16, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/diegesundheitlichenfolgen-
des-lockdowns-jetzt-sind-es-30-prozentwenigerherzinfarkte-dochspaeter-
werden-es-wohl-mehr/25834148.html.
(184) COVIDSurg Collaborative, “Elective Surgery Cancellations Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic:
Global Predictive Modelling to Inform Surgical Recovery Plans,” British Journal of Surgery,
May 12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11746.
(185) “Anzahl der Sterbefälle in Deutschland nach Altersgruppe im Jahr 2018,” Statista, May 2020,
(186) MarieLuise Dr. Stiefel et al., “Corona: Schützen Sie uns Ältere nicht um diesen Preis!
Selbstbestimmt altern und sterben!” Change.org, PBC, https://www.change.org/p
/bundeskanzlerin-corona-sch%C3%BCtzen-sie-%C3%A4ltere-nicht-um-diesen-preisselbstbestimmt-
altern-und-sterben.
(187) “UNICEF: Höhere risiken für Kinder wegen Massnahmen zur eindämmung des Coronavirus,”
UNICEF, March 23, 2020, https://www.unicef.de/informieren/aktuelles/presse/2020/risiken-fuer
-kinder-bei-eindaemmung-des-coronavirus/213060.
(188) Peter Dabrock, “„Kinder brauchen andere Kinder“,” interview by Anke Schaefer,
Deutschlandfunk Kultur (Berlin), April 14, 2020, https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de
/sozialethiker-kritisiertlange-kitaschliessungenkinder.1008.de.html?dram:article_id=474595.
(189) “Deutschlands Lehrer-Chef: ‘Ein Viertel aller Schüler abgehängt,” Focus, May 8, 2020, https://
allerschuelerabgehaengt_id_11878788.html.
(190) Sue Odenthal and Martina Morawietz, “‘Wir sind extrem blind im Kinderschutz,’” ZDF Heute
(Mainz), April 28, 2020, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-kinderschutzjugendamt-
100.html.
(191) Christoph Hein, “Auf Corona folgt der Hunger,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, April 22, 2020, https://
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/un-warnt-auf-coronafolgt-die-hungersnot-16736443.html.
(192) Leslie Roberts, “Why Measles Deaths Are Surging—and Coronavirus Could Make It Worse,”
Nature, updated April 9, 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01011-6.
(193) Stefan Homburg, “Warum Deutschlands Lockdown falsch ist—und Schweden vieles besser
macht,” Welt (Berlin), April 15, 2020, https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/plus207258427
/Schwedenals-Vorbild-Finanzwissenschaftler-gegen-CoronaLockdown.html?ticket=ST-A-
1309422-NghISRcCkH30TuFUa0V5-ssosignin-server.
(194) Johan Giesecke, “„Lockdown verschiebt Tote in die Zukunft“,” interview by Johannes Perterer,
Addendum, Quo Vadis Veritas, April 24, 2020, https://www.addendum.org/coronavirus
/interview-johan-giesecke.
(195) André Anwar, “WHO lobt Sonderweg: Können wir vom Modell Schweden lernen?,”
Augsburger Allgemeine, May 5, 2020, https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/WHOlobt-
Sonderweg-Koennen-wir-vom-Modell-Schwedenlernenid57329376.html.
(196) “Ende der Pandemie? Neue Zahlen widersprechen Regierungs-Linie- Punkt.PRERADOVIC mit
Prof. Homburg,” YouTube video, 16:17, interview by Punkt Preradovic, May 4, 2020, posted by
102
“Punkt.PRERADOVIC,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFkMIlKyHoI.
(197) “Wo die Coronavirus-Pandemie ohne Lockdown bewältigt wird,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin),
April 18, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/von-hongkong-lernenwo-die-coronaviruspandemie-
ohne-lockdownbewaeltigtwird/25752346.html.
(198) Gearoid Reidy, “Japan Was Expecting a Coronavirus Explosion. Where Is It?,” Japan Times,
March 20, 2020, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/20/national/coronavirus-explosion
-expected-japan/.
(199) Aria Bendix, “South Korea Has Tested 140,000 People for the Coronavirus. That Could Explain
Why Its Death Rate Is Just 0.6%—Far Lower Than in China or the US,” Business Insider,
March 5, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-coronavirus-testing-death-rate-
2020-3.
(200) Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Measures for Mitigating the Risk and Impact of Epidemic
and Pandemic Influenza (World Health Organization, 2019), https://www.who.int/influenza
/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en.
(201) “Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Prof Michael Levitt: Lockdown Is a ‘Huge Mistake,’” YouTube
video, 34:33, interview by UnHerd, posted by “UnHerd,” May 2, 2020, https://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk.
(202) Adelina Comas-Herrera et al., Mortality Associated with COVID-19 Outbreaks in Care Homes:
Early International Evidence, LTC Covid, updated June 26, 2020, https://ltccovid.org/2020/04
/12/mortality-associated-with-covid-19-outbreaks-in-care-homes-early-international-evidence.
(203) avstoesser, “Falsche Prioritäten gesetzt und ethische Prinzipien verletzt,” Pflegeethik Initiative,
Deutschland e.V., April 15, 2020, http://pflegeethik-initiative.de/2020/04/15/corona-krisefalsche-
prioritaeten-gesetzt-und-ethische-prinzipien-verletzt.
(204) “‘No Second Wave’ Despite Record Surge in New COVID-19 Cases, Says Czech Minister,”
Kafkadesk, June 29, 2020, https://kafkadesk.org/2020/06/29/no-second-wave-despite-recordsurge-
in-new-covid-19-cases-says-czech-minister.
(205) “Mandatory Face Masks Should Not Pose Problems, Says Swiss Train Boss,” Swissinfo (Bern),
July 3, 2020, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/mandatory-face-masks-should-not-pose-problems–
says-swiss-train-boss/45879254.
(206) Daland Segler, “„Anne Will“: Wie hart trifft uns die „neue Normalität“?,” Frankfurter
Rundschau, May 29, 2020, https://www.fr.de/kultur/tv-kino/corona-talk-anne-will-ardhart-trifftneue-
normalitaet-zr-13667631.html.
(207) “Corona-Folgen bekämpfen, Wohlstand sichern, Zukunftsfähigkeit stärken,” Federal Ministry of
Finance (Germany), June 3, 2020, https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE
/Standardartikel/Themen/Schlaglichter/Konjunkturpaket/2020-06-03-eckpunktepapier.pdf?_
_blob=publicationFile&v=10.
(208) “‘Es braucht eine globale Anstrengung,’” Tagesschau (Hamburg), April 12, 2020, https://www
.tagesschau.de/ausland/gates-corona-101.html.
(209) Jincun Zhao et al., “Airway Memory CD4+ T Cells Mediate Protective Immunity against
Emerging Respiratory Coronaviruses,” Immunity 44, no. 6 (June 2016): 1379–91, https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.immuni.2016.05.006.
(210) Annika Nelde et al., “SARS-CoV-2 T-cell Epitopes Define Heterologous and COVID-19-
Induced T-Cell Recognition,” preprint, posted June 17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
35331/v1.
(211) Alba Grifoni et al., “Targets of T-Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with
COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals,” Cell 181, no. 7 (June 2020): 1489–501.e15,
(212) Takuya Sekine et al., “Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic
103
or Mild COVID-19,” Cell, (August 2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.017.
(213) Barry Rockx et al., “Comparative Pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a
Nonhuman Primate Model,” Science 368, no. 6494 (May 2020): 1012–15, https://doi.org/10
.1126/science.abb7314.
(214) Shibo Jiang, “Don’t Rush to Deploy COVID-19 Vaccines and Drugs without Sufficient Safety
Guarantees,” Nature 579 (2020): 321, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00751-9.
(215) Sanjay Kumar, “Scientists Scoff at Indian Agency’s Plan to Have COVID-19 Vaccine Ready for
Use Next Month,” Science, July 6, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/scientistsscoff-
indian-agencys-plan-have-COVID-19-vaccine-ready-use-next-month.
(216) “COVID-19-Impfstoff: Antworten auf häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ),” Robert Koch Institut, last
accessed August 27, 2020, https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/COVID-19-
Impfen.html.
(217) Michael Barry, “Single-Cycle Adenovirus Vectors in the Current Vaccine Landscape,” Expert
Review of Vaccines 17, no. 2 (2018): 163–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2018.1419067.
(218) Ewen Callaway, “The Race for Coronavirus Vaccines: A Graphical Guide,” Nature 580 (April
2020): 576–77, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01221-y.
(219) Barney S. Graham, “Rapid COVID-19 Vaccine Development,” Science 368, no. 6494 (May
2020): 945–46, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8923.
(220) Vincent A. Fulginiti et al., “Altered Reactivity to Measles Virus: Atypical Measles in Children
Previously Immunized with Inactivated Measles Virus Vaccines,” JAMA 202, no. 12 (December
1967): 1075–80, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1967.03130250057008.
(221) Hyun Wha Kim et al., “Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease in Infants Despite Prior
Administration of Antigenic Inactivated Vaccine,” American Journal of Epidemiology 89, no. 4
(April 1969): 422–34, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120955.
(222) Cara C. Burns et al., “Multiple Independent Emergences of Type 2 Vaccine-Derived
Polioviruses during a Large Outbreak in Northern Nigeria,” Journal of Virology 87, no. 9 (April
2013): 4907–22, https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02954-12.
(223) Z. Wang et al., “Detection of Integration of Plasmid DNA into Host Genomic DNA Following
Intramuscular Injection and Electroporation,” Gene Therapy 11 (April 2004): 711–21, https://doi
.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302213.
(224) Barbara Langer et al., “Safety Assessment of Biolistic DNA Vaccination,” Biolistic DNA
Delivery 940 (2013): 371–88, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-110-3_27.
(225) Norbert Pardi et al., “mRNA Vaccines—A New Era in Vaccinology,” Nature Reviews Drug
Discovery 17, (2018): 261–79, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243.
(226) Peter Doshi, “The Elusive Definition of Pandemic Influenza,” Bulletin of the World Health
Organization 89, no. 7 (July 2011): 532–38, https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.086173.
(227) Andreas Zumach, “Der verhängnisvolle Einfluss der Pharmakonzerne,” interview by Dieter
Kassel, Deutschlandfunk Kultur (Berlin), May 16, 2017, https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de
/weltgesundheitsorganisation-derverhaengnisvolleeinfluss.1008.de.html?dram:article_id
=386282.
(228) Carsten Schroeder, “Schweinegrippe: Die Ruhe vor dem Sturm,” Deutschlandfunk (Cologne),
December 15, 2009, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/schweinegrippe-die-ruhe-vor-dem-sturm
.709.de.html?dram:article_id=88702.
(229) “Kanzlerin und Minister sollen speziellen Impfstoff erhalten,” Spiegel, October 17, 2009, https://
a-655764.html.
(230) Michael Fumento, “Why the WHO Faked a Pandemic,” Forbes, February 5, 2010, https://www
.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-
104
michael-fumento.html.
(231) Clare Dyer, “UK Vaccine Damage Scheme Must Pay £120 000 to Boy Who Developed
Narcolepsy after Swine Flu Vaccination,” BMJ 350 (2015): h3205, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj
.h3205.
(232) S. Sohail Ahmed et al., “Narcolepsy, 2009 A(H1N1) Pandemic Influenza, and Pandemic
Influenza Vaccinations: What Is Known and Unknown about the Neurological Disorder, the
Role for Autoimmunity, and Vaccine Adjuvants,” Journal of Autoimmunity 50 (May 2014): 1–
11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2014.01.033.
(233) Urs P. Gasche, “Corona: Medien verbreiten weiter unbeirrt statistischen Unsinn,” Infosperber,
April 26, 2020, https://www.infosperber.ch/Artikel/Medien/Corona-Medien-verbreiten-weiterunbeirrt-
statistischen-Unsinn.
(234) Michael Scheppe, “Risikoforscher erklärt: Das können wir gegen die Angst vor dem
Coronavirus tun,” Handelsblatt (Düsseldorf), March 10, 2020, https://www.handelsblatt.com
/technik/medizin/gerdgigerenzer-im-interview-risikoforscher-erklaert-das-koennenwirgegen-dieangst-
vor-dem-coronavirus-tun/25624846.html.
(235) Christof Kuhbandner, “Von der fehlenden wissenschaftlichen Begründung der Corona-
Maßnahmen,” Telepolis, April 25, 2020, https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Von-der-fehlendenwissenschaftlichen-
Begruendung-der-Corona-Massnahmen-4709563.html.
(236) “12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic,” OffGuardian, March 24, 2020, https://offguardian.
org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic.
(237) “10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic,” OffGuardian, March 28, 2020, https://off
-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic.
(238) “Kritik an Corona-Berichterstattung der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien,” Radio Dreyeckland,
March 27, 2020, https://rdl.de/beitrag/kritik-corona-berichterstattung-der-ffentlich-rechtlichenmedien.
(239) Nils Metzger, “Warum Sucharit Bhakdis Zahlen falsch sind,” ZDF Heute (Mainz), March 23,
2020, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-faktencheck-bhakdi-100.html.
(240) Charlie Wood, “YouTube’s CEO Suggested Content That ‘Goes Against’ WHO Guidance on
the Coronavirus Will Get Banned,” Business Insider, April 23, 2020, https://www
.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-guidance-2020-4.
(241) John Oxford, “A View from the HVIVO / Open Orphan #ORPH Laboratory—Professor John
Oxford,” Novus Communications, March 31, 2020, https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view
-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford.
(242) Rainer Radtke, “Anzahl der Todesfälle nach den häufigsten Todesursachen in Deutschland in
den Jahren 2016 bis 2018,” Statista, August 13, 2020, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten
/studie/158441/umfrage/anzahl-der-todesfaelle-nach-todesursachen.
(243) “Österreich: Regierungsexperten waren gegen Corona-Lockdown,” RT (Germany), May 14,
2020, https://deutsch.rt.com/europa/102434-osterreich-expertenwaren-gegen-lockdown.
(244) “Dirk Müller: So schlimm wird es NOCH – und wer dahinter steckt! // Mission Money,”
YouTube video, 1:00:27, posted by “Mission Money,” March 26, 2020, https://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=Gf4y0HoEkCU.
(245) Stefan Homburg, “Finanz-Professor: „Das ist das größte Umverteilungsprogramm in
Friedenszeiten“,” interview, Rundblick, April 2, 2020, https://www.rundblick-niedersachsen.de
/finanz-professor-das-ist-das-groesste-umverteilungsprogramm-in-friedenszeiten.
(246) Rubikons Weltredaktion, “Der Corona-Totalitarismus,” Rubikon, March 30, 2020, https://www
.rubikon.news/artikel/der-corona-totalitarismus.
105
About the Authors
Karina Reiss was born in Germany and studied biology at the University of Kiel where she received her
PhD in 2001. She became assistant professor in 2006 and associate professor in 2008 at the University
of Kiel. She has published over sixty articles in the fields of cell biology, biochemistry, inflammation,
and infection, which have gained international recognition and received prestigious honors and awards.
Sucharit Bhakdi was born in Washington, DC, and educated at schools in Switzerland, Egypt, and
Thailand. He studied medicine at the University of Bonn in Germany, where he received his MD in
106
1970. He was a post-doctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics
in Freiburg from 1972 to 1976, and at The Protein Laboratory in Copenhagen from 1976 to 1977. He
joined the Institute of Medical Microbiology at Giessen University in 1977 and was appointed associate
professor in 1982. He was named chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz in 1990,
where he remained until his retirement in 2012. Dr. Bhakdi has published over three hundred articles in
the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology, and parasitology, for which he has received
numerous awards and the Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate. Sucharit Bhakdi and his wife, Karina
Reiss, live with their three-year-old son, Jonathan Atsadjan, in a small village near the city of Kiel.
107
Table of Contents
Title Page 2
Copyright 3
Dedication 5
Acknowledgements 6
Contents 7
1. Preface 10
How everything started 11
Coronaviruses: the basics 11
China: the dread threat emerges 12
2. How dangerous is the new “killer” virus? 13
Compared to conventional coronaviruses 13
Regarding the number of deaths 14
How does the new coronavirus compare with influenza viruses? 21
The situation in Italy, Spain, England and the USA 25
3. Corona-situation in Germany 30
The German narrative 31
The pandemic is declared 32
Nationwide lockdown 35
April 2020: no reason to prolong the lockdown 38
The lockdown is extended 39
Mandatory masks 39
Last argument for extension of lockdown: the impending second
wave? 40
Relaxing the restrictions with the emergency brake applied 42
4. Too much? Too little? What happened? 45
Overburdened hospitals 45
Shortage of ventilators? 48
Were the measures appropriate? 49
108
What did the government do right? 49
What did the government do wrong? 50
What should our government have done? 50
5. Collateral damage 51
Economic consequences 52
Disruption of medical care 53
Drugs and suicide 53
Heart attack and stroke 54
Other ailments 54
Further consequences for the elderly 55
Innocent and vulnerable: our children 56
Consequences for the world’s poorest 58
6. Did other countries fare better – Sweden as a role model? 60
Are there benefits of lockdown measures? 62
So which measures would have actually been correct? 67
7. Is vaccination the universal remedy? 68
On the question of immunity against COVID-19 69
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question 73
Pandemic or no pandemic – the role of the WHO 76
8. Failure of the public media 79
Where was truthful information to be found? 79
Where was the open discussion? 80
The numbers game 81
Defamation and discrediting 82
Censorship of opinions 82
The German “good citizen” and the failure of politics 83
Why did our politicians fail? 85
9. Quo vadis? 87
10. A farewell 90
References 91
109
About the Authors 106
110
CORONA
FALSE ALARM?
Facts and Figures
Karina Reiss & Sucharit Bhakdi
Chelsea Green Publishing
White River Junction, Vermont
London, UK
2
Copyright © 2020 by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Vienna.
Originally published in Germany by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Friedrichstraße 191 • D-10117 Berlin, in
2020 as Corona Fehlalarm?
English translation copyright © 2020 by Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Berlin and Vienna.
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be transmitted or reproduced in any form by any means without permission in
writing from the publisher.
Translated by Monika Wiedmann and Deirdre Anderson
Author photos: Peter Pullkowski/Sucharit Bhakdi; Dagmar Blankenburg/Karina Reiss
Cover design: Alexandra Schepelmann/Donaugrafik.at
Layout and typesetting: Goldegg Verlag GmbH, Vienna
This edition published by Chelsea Green Publishing, 2020.
Printed in the United States of America.
First printing September 2020.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 21 22 23 24
Our Commitment to Green Publishing
Chelsea Green sees publishing as a tool for cultural change and ecological stewardship. We strive to
align our book manufacturing practices with our editorial mission and to reduce the impact of our
business enterprise in the environment. We print our books and catalogs on chlorine-free recycled
paper, using vegetable-based inks whenever possible. This book may cost slightly more because it was
printed on paper that contains recycled fiber, and we hope you’ll agree that it’s worth it. Corona, False
Alarm? was printed on paper supplied by Versa that is made of recycled materials and other controlled
sources.
ISBN 978-1-64502-057-8 (paperback) | ISBN 978-1-64502-058-5 (ebook) | ISBN 978-1-64502-059-2
(audio book)
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020945206
Chelsea Green Publishing
85 North Main Street, Suite 120
White River Junction, Vermont USA
Somerset House
London, UK
3
4
For our sunshine on dark days.
Jonathan Atsadjan
5
Acknowledgements
The authors owe a great debt of gratitude to Monika Wiedmann for the initial
translation from the German and to Deirdre Anderson for critical comments
and valuable suggestions. Our heartfelt thanks to both for professional editing
and proofreading of the final manuscript.
6
Contents
1. Preface
How everything started
Coronaviruses: the basics
China: the dread threat emerges
2. How dangerous is the new “killer” virus?
Compared to conventional coronaviruses
Regarding the number of deaths
How does the new coronavirus compare with influenza viruses?
The situation in Italy, Spain, England and the USA
3. Corona-situation in Germany
The German narrative
The pandemic is declared
Nationwide lockdown
April 2020: no reason to prolong the lockdown
The lockdown is extended
Mandatory masks
Last argument for extension of lockdown: the impending second
wave?
Relaxing the restrictions with the emergency brake applied
4. Too much? Too little? What happened?
Overburdened hospitals
Shortage of ventilators?
Were the measures appropriate?
What did the government do right?
What did the government do wrong?
7
What should our government have done?
5. Collateral damage
Economic consequences
Disruption of medical care
Drugs and suicide
Heart attack and stroke
Other ailments
Further consequences for the elderly
Innocent and vulnerable: our children
Consequences for the world’s poorest
6. Did other countries fare better – Sweden as a role
model?
Are there benefits of lockdown measures?
So which measures would have actually been correct?
7. Is vaccination the universal remedy?
On the question of immunity against COVID-19
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question
Pandemic or no pandemic – the role of the WHO
8. Failure of the public media
Where was truthful information to be found?
Where was the open discussion?
The numbers game
Defamation and discrediting
Censorship of opinions
The German “good citizen” and the failure of politics
Why did our politicians fail?
9. Quo vadis?
10. A farewell
8
11. References
9
1
Preface
The first months of the year 2020 were characterised worldwide by a single
nightmare: Corona. Dreadful images took wing from China, then from Italy,
followed by other countries. Projections on how many countless deaths
would occur were coupled with pictures of panic buying and empty
supermarket shelves. The media in everyday life was driven by Corona,
morning, noon and night for weeks on end. Draconian quarantine measures
were established all over the world. When you stepped outside, you found
yourself in a surreal world – not a soul to be seen, but instead empty streets,
empty cities, empty beaches. Civil rights were restricted as never before since
the end of the Second World War. The collapse of social life and the
economy were generally accepted as being inevitable. Was the country under
threat of such a dreadful danger to justify these measures? Had the benefits
that could possibly be gained by these measures been adequately weighed
against the subsequent collateral damage that might also be expected? Is the
current plan to develop a global vaccination programme realistic and
scientifically sound?
Our original book was written for the public in our country and this
translated version is tilted toward the German narrative. However, global
developments have advanced along similar lines, so that the basic arguments
hold. We have replaced a number of local events in favour of pressing new
issues regarding the question of immunity and the postulated need for
development of vaccines against the virus.
The intent of this book is to provide readers with facts and background
information, so that they will be able to arrive at their own conclusions.
Statements in the book should be regarded as the authors’ opinions that we
submit for your scrutiny. Criticism and dissent are welcome. In scientific
10
discussions, postulation of any thesis should also invite antitheses, so that
finally the synthesis may resolve potential disagreement and enable us to
advance in the interest of mankind. We do not expect all readers to share our
points of view. But we do hope to ignite an open and much needed
discussion, to the benefit of all citizens of this deeply troubled world.
How everything started
In December of 2019, a large number of respiratory illnesses were recorded
in Wuhan, a city with about 10 million inhabitants. The patients were found
to be infected with a novel coronavirus, which was later given the name
SARS-CoV-2. The respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 was
designated COVID-19. In China, the outbreak evolved into an epidemic in
January 2020, rapidly spreading around the globe(1,2,3).
Coronaviruses: the basics
Coronaviruses co-exist with humans and animals worldwide, and
continuously undergo genetic mutation so that countless variants are
generated(4,5). “Normal” coronaviruses are responsible for 10–20% of
respiratory infections and generate symptoms of the common cold. Many
infected individuals remain asymptomatic(6). Others experience mild
symptoms such as unproductive cough, whilst some additionally develop
fever and joint pains. Severe illness occurs mainly in the elderly and can take
a fatal course, particularly in patients with pre-existing illnesses, especially of
heart and lung. Thus, even “harmless” coronaviruses can be associated with
case fatality rates of 8% when they gain entry to nursing homes(7). Still, due
to their marginal clinical significance, costly measures for diagnosing
coronavirus infections are seldom undertaken, searches for antiviral agents
have not been prioritised, and vaccine development has not been subject to
serious discussion.
Only two members of the coronavirus family reached world headlines in
the past.
SARS virus (official name: SARS-CoV) entered the stage in 2003. This
11
variant caused severe respiratory illness with a high fatality rate of
approximately 10%. Fortunately, the virus turned out not to be highly
contagious, and its spread could be contained by conventional isolation
measures. Only 774 deaths were registered worldwide(8,9). Despite this
manageable danger, fear of SARS led to a worldwide economic loss of 40
billion US dollars(8). Coronaviruses subsequently faded into the background.
A new variant, MERS-CoV, emerged in the Middle East in 2012 and caused
life-threatening disease with an even higher fatality rate of more than 30%.
But contagiousness of the virus was also low and the epidemic was rapidly
brought under control(10).
China: the dread threat emerges
When the news came from China that a new coronavirus family member had
appeared on stage, the most pressing question was: would it be harmless like
its “normal” relatives or would it be SARS-like and highly dangerous? Or
worse still: highly dangerous and highly contagious?
First reports and disturbing scenes from China caused the worst to be
feared. The virus spread rapidly and with apparent deadly efficacy. China
resorted to drastic measures. Wuhan and five other cities were encircled by
the army and completely isolated from the outside world.
At the end of the epidemic, official statistics reported about 83,000
infected people and fewer than 5,000 fatalities(11), an infinitesimally small
number in a country with 1.4 billion inhabitants. Either the lockdown worked
or the new virus was not so dangerous after all. Whatever the case, China
became the shining example on how we could overcome SARS-CoV-2.
More disturbing news then came from northern Italy. Striking swiftly, the
virus left countless dead in its wake. Media coverage likened the situation to
“war-like conditions”(12). What was not reported was that in other parts of
Italy, and also in most other countries, the “fatality rate” of COVID-19 was
considerably lower(13,14).
Could it be that the intrinsic deadliness of one and the same virus varied,
depending on the country and region it invaded? Not very likely, it seemed.
12
2
How dangerous is the new “killer”
virus?
Compared to conventional coronaviruses
Gauging the true threat that the virus posed was initially impossible. Right
from the beginning, the media and politicians spread a distorted and
misleading picture based on fundamental flaws in data acquisition and
especially on medically incorrect definitions laid down by the World Health
Organization (WHO). Each positive laboratory test for the virus was to be
reported as a COVID-19 case, irrespective of clinical presentation(15). This
definition represented an unforgiveable breach of a first rule in infectiology:
the necessity to differentiate between “infection” (invasion and multiplication
of an agent in the host) and “infectious disease” (infection with ensuing
illness). COVID-19 is the designation for severe illness that occurs only in
about 10% of infected individuals(16), but because of incorrect designation,
the number of “cases” surged and the virus vaulted to the top of the list of
existential threats to the world.
Another serious mistake was that every deceased person who had tested
positive for the virus entered the official records as a coronavirus victim. This
method of reporting violated all international medical guidelines(17). The
absurdity of giving COVID-19 as the cause of death in a patient who dies of
cancer needs no comment. Correlation does not imply causation. This was
causal fallacy that was destined to drive the world into a catastrophe. Truth
surrounding the virus remained enshrouded in a tangle of rumours, myths and
beliefs.
A French study, published on March 19, brought first light into the
13
darkness(6). Two cohorts of approximately 8,000 patients with respiratory
disease were grouped according to whether they were carrying everyday
coronaviruses or SARS-CoV-2. Deaths in each group were registered over
two months. However, the number of fatalities did not significantly differ in
the two groups and the conclusion followed that the danger of “COVID-19”
was probably overestimated. In a subsequent study, the same team compared
the mortality associated with diagnosis of respiratory viruses during the
colder months of 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 (week 47-week 14) in
southeastern France. Overall, the proportion of respiratory virus-associated
deaths among hospitalised patients was not significantly higher in 2019–2020
than the year before(18). Thus, addition of SARS-CoV-2 to the spectrum of
viral pathogens did not affect overall mortality in patients with respiratory
disease.
Regarding the number of deaths
How can the aforementioned be reconciled with the official reports of the
horrifying number of COVID-19 deaths? Two numbers must be known if the
danger of a virus is to be assessed: the number of infections and the number
of deaths.
How many were infected by the new virus?
Attempts to answer this question were beset by three problems:
1. How reliable was the test for virus detection?
The virus is present in the nasopharynx for approximately two weeks, during
which time it can be detected. How is this done? Viral RNA is transcribed
into DNA and quantified by the so-called polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
The first assay for the new coronavirus was developed under guidance of
Professor Christian Drosten, Head of the Institute for Virology at the Charité
Berlin. This test was used worldwide in the initial months of the outbreak(19).
Tests from other laboratories followed(20).
Diagnostic PCR tests must normally undergo stringent quality assessment
and be approved by regulatory agencies before use. This is important because
14
no laboratory test can ever give 100% correct results. The quality control
requirements were essentially shelved in the case of SARS-CoV-2 because of
declared international urgency. Consequently, nothing was really known
regarding test reliability, specificity and sensitivity. In essence, these
parameters give an indication of how many false-positive or false-negative
results should be expected. The test protocol from the Drosten laboratory
were used worldwide, and test results played a key role in political decisionmaking.
Yet, data interpretation was often largely a matter of belief. What did
Drosten himself say on Twitter(21)?
Sure: Towards the end of the illness the PCR is sometimes positive and sometimes
negative. Here, chance plays a role. When you test a patient twice as negative and
discharge him as cured, it is indeed possible that you can have positive test results
again at home. But this is still far from being a re-infection.
Several physician colleagues have informed us of similar haphazard results
with patients who had been tested repeatedly during their hospitalisation. Is it
particularly surprising that goats and papayas tested positive for the virus in
Tanzania? The criticism by the President of Tanzania regarding the
unreliability of the test kits was of course immediately dismissed by the
WHO(22).
But today it is perfectly clear that the test result is error-prone, as is every
PCR(23,24). How much so, and whether there are significant differences
among the presently available tests, cannot be determined because of lack of
data. So let us assume that the PCR test is incredibly good and produces 99.5%
correct results. That sounds, and would indeed be, exceptional – it means that
one can expect only 0.5% false-positives. Now take the cruise ship “Mein
Schiff 3”. After a crew member had tested positive for the virus, almost 2,900
people from 73 countries were forced into “ship quarantine”. Many had been
on board for nine months. Complaints reached the outside world about the
“prison-like” conditions, psychological problems abounded and nerves were
frayed(25).
Nine positive cases were reported after testing was completed. One person
who tested positive had a cough, the other eight were without symptoms.
Might they have belonged to the 0.5% false-positive cases, as perhaps the
very first case had been? Where were the true-positives that must
15
theoretically have been there? Were they possibly tested as false-negatives or
were all positive tests false?
In the context of false results, we should consider the following: when the
epidemic subsided (in Germany, in mid-April,) PCR testing became a
dangerous source of misinformation because numbers of new cases were
derived from the “background noise” of false-positive results. When all 7,500
employees of the Charité Berlin (one of Europe’s largest university hospitals)
were tested from April 7 to April 21, 0.33% were positive(26). True or false?
When positive test rates drop below a certain limit, it is senseless to
continue mass screening for the virus in non-symptomatic individuals. And
use of numbers acquired under these circumstances as a reason for
implementing any measures should not be tolerated.
2. Selective or representative? Who was tested?
There is only one way to approximate how many people are infected during
an epidemic with an agent that causes high numbers of unnoticed infections:
at sites of an outbreak, the population must be tested as extensively as
possible. But scientists who called for this during the coronavirus
epidemic(27,28) were ignored.
Instead, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German federal government
agency and research institute for disease control, stipulated at the beginning
that only selective testing should be carried out – exactly the opposite of what
should have happened. And as the epidemic ran its course, the RKI stepwise
altered the testing strategy – always in the diametrically wrong direction(29).
At first, only people who had been in a high-risk area and/or had been in
contact with an infected person and also presented with flu-like symptoms
were to be tested. At the end of March, the RKI then changed the
recommended test criteria to: flu-like symptoms and, at the same time,
contact with an infected person. At the beginning of May, the President of the
RKI, Professor Lothar Wieler, announced people with even “the slightest
symptoms” should be tested(29).
The responsibility for translating these dubious decisions into action lay
entirely within the hands of the local health authorities. A co-worker at our
lab was a typical example: the coach of her handball team was coronavirus
positive. The players – all from different administrative districts – were sent
16
home on 14-day quarantine. One player developed symptoms with coughing
and hoarseness and wanted to get tested but was refused on the grounds that
she had no fever. A player from a neighbouring district had no symptoms but
the local health authority ordered a test despite this fact.
This resulted in chaos, caused by the appalling ineptitude of the
authorities from top to bottom. What would have been urgently needed
instead were scientifically sound studies to clarify basic issues of virus
dissemination. As many as possible should have been tested in outbreak
areas. Antibody responses in those that had tested positively could have
subsequently been assessed.
Only a single such study addressing these questions was undertaken in
Germany: the Heinsberg investigation conducted by Professor Hendrik
Streeck, Director of the Institute for Virology at the University of Bonn.
Aware of the importance of the preliminary data, these were presented at a
press conference – where Streeck was torn apart by the disbelieving
media(30,31). The fatality rate was ridiculed as being impossible because it
was ten times lower than what acknowledged experts and the WHO had been
spreading as established facts. After completion of the study, final results
essentially confirming the preliminary report were again presented, and again
deemed by the media to be flawed and inconclusive. But the results of the
study spoke for themselves(32) – and they contradicted the panic propaganda
of the media.
3. The number of conducted tests directly influences infection statistics
A third factor added to the statistical mess. Imagine that you wanted to count
the number of a migratory bird species in a large lake district. There are
hundreds of thousands but your counting device can only count 5,000 per
day. Next day, you ask a colleague to help, and together you arrive at 10,000
counts. The day after that, two more colleagues join in and 20,000 birds are
counted. In short, the higher the testing capacity/number of tests, the higher
the numbers – as long as innumerable unidentified cases abound, as with
SARS-CoV-2(16,32–36). The more tests are performed, the more COVID-19
cases are found during the epidemic. This is the essence of a “laboratorycreated
pandemic”.
Now recall that the test has neither 100% specificity nor 100% sensitivity
17
– meaning that occasionally you would mistake a log for a bird. Therefore,
even after all our birds have long since moved on, you would still “find”
many by just performing a sufficient number of tests.
In conclusion, no reliable data existed regarding the true numbers of
infection at any stage of the epidemic in this country. At the peak of the
epidemic, the official numbers must have been gross underestimates – in the
order of 10 or even more. At its wane at the end of April in Germany, the
numbers must also have been gross overestimates.
Basing any political decisions on official numbers at any stage was
fallacy.
How many deaths did SARS-CoV-2 infections claim?
Here, again, we have the dilemma of definition: what is a “coronavirus
death”?
If I drive to the hospital to be tested and later have a fatal car accident –
just as my positive test results are returned – I become a coronavirus death. If
I am diagnosed positive for coronavirus and jump off the balcony in shock, I
also become a coronavirus death. The same is true for a sudden stroke, etc.
As openly declared by RKI president Wieler, every individual with a positive
test result at the time of death is entered into the statistics. The first
“coronavirus death” in the northernmost state of Germany, Schleswig-
Holstein, occurred in a palliative ward, where a patient with terminal
oesophageal cancer was seeking peace before embarking on his last journey.
A swab was taken just before his demise that was returned positive – after his
death(37). He might equally well have been positive for other viruses such as
rhino-, adeno- or influenza virus – if they had been tested for.
This particular case did not need more testing or a post-mortem to
determine the actual cause of death.
However, with the emergence of a new and possibly dangerous infectious
disease, autopsies should be undertaken in cases of doubt to clarify the actual
cause of death. Only one pathologist ventured to fulfil this task in Germany.
Against the specific advice of the RKI, Professor Klaus Püschel, Director of
the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Hamburg University, performed autopsies
on all “coronavirus victims” and found that not one had been healthy(38).
Most had suffered from several pre-existing conditions. One in two suffered
18
from coronary heart disease. Other frequent ailments were hypertension,
atherosclerosis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, lung and kidney disease and liver
cirrhosis(39).
The same occurred elsewhere. Swiss pathologist Professor Alexander
Tzankov reported that many victims had suffered from hypertension, most
were overweight, two thirds had heart problems and one third had
diabetes(40). The Italian Ministry of Health reported that 96% of COVID-19
hospital deaths had been patients with at least one severe underlying illness.
Almost 50% had three or more pre-existing conditions(41).
Interestingly, Püschel found lung embolisms in every third patient(39).
Pulmonary embolisms usually arise through detachment of blood clots in
deep veins of the leg that are swept into the lungs. Clots typically form when
blood flow sags in the legs, as when the elderly spend the day seated and
inactive. A high frequency of lung embolisms was already described in
deceased influenza patients 50 years ago(42). Thus, we are not on the verge of
discovering a unique property of SARS-Cov-2 that would heighten its threat,
but we do bear witness to the absurd situation where the elderly seek to
protect themselves by obeying the chant that sounds around the world: “Stay
at home”. Physical inactivity is pre-programmed, thromboses included?
Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke recommended exactly the
opposite: As much fresh air and activity as possible. The man knows his job!
The number of genuine COVID-19 fatalities remained unknown outside
Hamburg. The situation was no better in other countries. Professor Walter
Riccardi, adviser to the Italian Ministry of Health, stated in a March interview
with “The Telegraph” that 88% of the Italian “coronavirus deaths” had not
been due to the virus(43).
The problem with coronavirus death counts is such that the numbers can
be viewed as nothing other than gross overestimates(44). In Belgium, not only
fatalities with a positive COVID-19 test entered the ranks but also those
where COVID-19 was simply suspected(45).
Scientific competence did not seem to rule the agenda of Germany’s RKI.
Fortunately, there are scientists who stand out in contrast. Stanford Professor
John Ioannidis is one of the eminent epidemiologists of our times. When it
became clear that the epidemic in Europe was nearing its end, he showed
how the officially reported numbers of “coronavirus deaths” could be used to
19
calculate the absolute risk of dying from COVID-19(46).
The risk for a person under 65 years in Germany was about as high as a
daily drive of 24 kilometres. The risk was low even for the elderly ≥ 80 with
10 “coronavirus deaths” per 10,000 ≥ 80-year olds in Germany (column at
the far right).
Calculation of this number is simple. About 8.5 million citizens are ≥ 80
years in Germany. About 8,500 “coronavirus deaths” were recorded in this
age group. This leads to an absolute risk of coronavirus death of 10 per
10,000 ≥ 80 year-olds. Now realise that every year about 1,200 of 10,000 ≥
80-year olds die in Germany (black column, data from the Federal Office of
Statistics). Nearly half of them due to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), almost
a third from cancer and around 10% (over 100) owing to respiratory
infections. The latter have always been caused by a multitude of pathogens
including the coronavirus family. It is obvious that a new member has now
joined the club, and that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be assigned any special role as
a “killer virus”.
This is underlined by another observation. Severe respiratory infections
are registered by the RKI in the context of influenza surveillance. The
vertical line marks the time when documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infections
was started. Was there ever any indication for an increase in the number of
respiratory infections(47)? No, the 2019/20 winter peak is followed by typical
seasonal decline. And note that the lockdown (red arrow) was implemented
when the curve had almost reached base level.
20
Source: Homepage RKI (Fig. 1), https://grippeweb.rki.de/
How does the new coronavirus compare with influenza
viruses?
The WHO warned the world that the COVID-19 virus was much more
infectious, that the illness could take a very serious course, and that no
vaccine or medication was available.
The WHO abstained from explaining that truly effective medication
hardly exists against any viral disease and that vaccination against seasonal
flu is increasingly recognised as being ineffective or even counterproductive.
Furthermore, the WHO disregarded two points that needed to first be
addressed before any valid comparison of the viruses could be undertaken.
How many people die of COVID-19 compared with influenza?
The WHO claimed that 3–4% of COVID-19 patients would die, which by far
exceeded the fatality rate of annual influenza(48).
This is important enough to call for a closer look. Influenza viruses pass
wave-like through the population. The waves can be small in one year and
21
high in another. Case fatality rates are 0.1% to 0.2% during a normal flu
season in Germany(49), which translates to several hundreds of deaths. In
contrast, there were approximately 30,000 influenza-related deaths in the
1995/1996 season(50) and approximately 15,000 deaths in 2002/2003 and
2004/2005.
The RKI estimates that the last great flu epidemic of 2017/2018 claimed
25,000 lives(51). With 330,000 reported cases, the fatality rate would be ~8%
(52). As in all previous years, Germany weathered this epidemic without
implementing any unusual measures.
The WHO estimates that there are 290,000–650,000 flu deaths each
year(53).
Now turn to COVID-19. In May, the RKI calculated that 170,000
infections with 7,000 coronavirus deaths equals a 4% case fatality rate – as
predicted by the WHO! Conclusion: COVID-19 is really ten times more
dangerous than seasonal flu(54).
However, the number of infections was at least ten times higher because
most mild and asymptomatic cases had not been sought and detected(55–59).
This would bring us to a much more realistic fatality rate of 0.4%. Moreover,
the number of “true” COVID-19 deaths was lower because many or most had
died of causes other than the virus. Further correction of the number brings us
to a rough estimate of 0.1% – 0.3%, which is in the range of moderate flu.
This tallies well with the results of Professor Streeck, who arrived at an
estimate of 0.24% – 0.26% based on the data of his Heinsberg study. The
average age of the deceased who tested positive was around 81 years(32).
The conclusion that COVID-19 is comparable to seasonal flu has been
reached by many investigators in other countries. In an analysis of several
studies, Ioannidis showed that, contingent on local factors and statistical
methodology, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27%(60). Many other
investigators arrived at similar conclusions. All studies to date thus clearly
show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a real “killer virus”(61–71).
Flu and COVID-19: who are the vulnerable?
Influenza viruses are dangerous mainly to individuals of ≥ 60 years but can
sometimes also cause fatal infections in younger people.
22
A salient feature of the virus is that after its multiplication and release, it
induces the infected host cell to commit suicide. This is a major predisposing
factor for bacterial super-infections(72), which were the major cause of death
during the Spanish flu.
In contrast, coronaviruses are inherently less destructive. Patients show
characteristic changes in their lungs, but whether the virus is deadly or not
depends less on the virus and more on the patient’s overall state of health.
Time and again, press reports appear on “completely healthy” young people
who nonetheless were carried off by the virus. We do not know of a single
case where it did not turn out afterwards that the person had not been
“completely healthy”, but rather had suffered for years from hypertension,
diabetes or other illnesses that had gone undetected.
Sensational news: 103 year-old Italian woman recovers from COVID-
19(73)! In fact, she was not the only old lady who survived the infection
without problems. Most actually did(74). The record is held by a 113 year-old
Spanish woman(75).
Although the median age of the deceased is over 80 in Germany and other
countries(41,76–78), age per se is not the decisive criterion. People without
severe pre-existing illness need fear the virus no more than young people. As
we know from Püschel’s and many other reports, SARS-CoV-2 is almost
always the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. While this is certainly sad
for the family and loved ones, it is still no reason to assign the virus any
heightened role. We need to keep in mind that every year, millions die of
respiratory tract infections, with a whole spectrum of bacterial and viral
agents playing causal roles.
One must not forget that the true cause of a death is the disease or
condition that triggers the lethal chain of events. If someone suffering from
severe emphysema or end-stage cancer contacts fatal pneumonia, the cause of
death is still emphysema or cancer(79,80).
This basic rule is simply ignored in times of coronavirus. Even worse –
once tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, (even falsely) – an individual can
remain marked as a COVID-19 victim for life, depending on the inclination
of the responsible authority(81,82). Then, irrespective of when and why death
occurs, he or she will enter the COVID-19 death register.
Thus, the number of coronavirus deaths will continue to soar incessantly.
23
Fear in the general populace is further fuelled by reports that SARS-CoV-2 is
much more dangerous than the flu because it attacks many different organs
with probable long-term consequences. Newspaper reports and publications
abound that the virus can be found in the heart, liver, and kidneys(83). It may
even find its way to our central nervous system?!
Such headlines sound terrifying. However, obtaining positive RT-PCR
results for SARS-CoV-2 in organs other than the lung is nothing surprising.
The virus uses receptors to enter our cells that are not only on the surface of
lung cells. But two issues are of decisive importance: the actual viral load and
the question of whether the viruses cause any damage. The highest SARSCoV-
2 concentrations have been found in the lungs of patients – as is to be
expected. Traces of the virus have been detected in other organs(83). Most
probably, they bear no relevance. Until scientific evidence to the contrary is
available, the findings must be left for what they are: trivial observations.
Is there a difference with the flu? No. It has been known for years that
influenza can affect the heart and other organs(84,85). All respiratory viruses
can find their way to the central nervous system(86). There is no basic
difference with SARS-CoV-2. Once in a while, patients may suffer from
long-term consequences. This applies to all viral diseases, and they are
exceptions. It is the exception that proves the rule.
What do we learn from all of this? COVID-19 is a disease that makes
some people sick, proves fatal to a few, and does nothing to the rest. Like any
annual flu.
Of course, it was always necessary to take special care not to bring these
agents to elderly persons with pre-existing illnesses. When you feel unwell,
refrain from visiting grandma and grandpa, especially if they are suffering
from a heart condition or lung disease. And whoever has the flu will stay at
home anyway. That is how everything has been and how everything should
continue.
The fact that SARS-CoV-2 does not constitute a public danger and that
the infection often runs its course without symptoms might have one
disadvantage. Perhaps asymptomatic people are contagious and unknowingly
pass the virus on to others. This fear originated from a publication coauthored
and widely publicised by Drosten, in which it was reported that the
Chinese businesswoman who infected an automotive supplier’s staff member
24
during a visit to Bavaria displayed no symptoms herself(87). This publication
caused a worldwide sensation with expected effects, for a deadly virus that
could be transmitted by healthy individuals was akin to a swift and invisible
killer. This fear became the driving force behind many extreme preventive
measures – from visiting bans for hospitalised patients all the way to
obligatory mask-wearing.
In the midst of general panic, a very important fact escaped general
attention. The major statement of the publication turned out to be false. A
follow-up inquiry revealed that the Chinese woman had been ill during her
stay in Germany and was under medication to relieve pain and reduce
fever(88). This was not mentioned in the publication(87).
Another study that was published in April by the Drosten laboratory also
came under international criticism. It concerned the question about the role of
children in disease transmission. According to the Drosten study,
asymptomatic children were just as contagious as adults. This message
caused great concern to the general public and influenced subsequent
decisions by the government. In fact, no studies exist to indicate that children
play any significant role as vectors for transmission of this disease.
Be that as it may, there was no reason for completely pointless measures
like closing schools and day care centres, which are known to do nothing to
protect the high-risk groups(89). And no reason whatsoever to drive social life
and the economy against the wall.
What is wrong with Germany – and this whole world?
Well, all the pictures disseminated so effectively by the international
media – from Italy, Spain, England and then even from New York – coupled
with model calculations for hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions
of deaths – planted the firm conviction in the general populace: It simply
HAS TO BE a killer virus!
The situation in Italy, Spain, England and the USA
Since the end of March, one sensation outdid the next: Italy had the most
deaths, the fatality rate shocked us to the core; Spain surpassed Italy (in the
number of infections); the United Kingdom broke the sad European record,
exceeded only by the US. The press delighted in spreading as much terrifying
25
news as humanly possible.
But let us reflect a little. The impact of an epidemic is dependent not only
on the intrinsic properties and deadliness of the pathogen but also to a very
significant extent on how “fertile” the soil is on which it lands. All reliable
figures tell us we are not dealing with a killer virus that will sweep away
mankind. So what did happen in those countries from which these dreadful
pictures emerged?
Detailed answers to this question must be sought on the ground.
Nevertheless, several facts are sufficiently known to warrant mention here.
Problems surrounding coronavirus statistics went totally rampant in Italy and
Spain. Elsewhere, testing for the virus was generally performed on people
with flu-like symptoms and a certain risk of exposure to the virus. At the
height of the epidemic in Italy, testing was restricted to severely ill patients
upon their admission to the hospital. Illogically, testing was widely
performed post-mortem on deceased patients. This resulted in falsely elevated
case fatality rates combined with massive underestimates of actual
infections(90).
As early as mid-March, the Italian GIMBE (Gruppo Italiano per la
Medicina Basata Sulle Evidenze / Italian Evidence-Based Medicine Group)
foundation stated that the “degree of severity and lethality rate are largely
overestimated, while the lethality rates in Lombardy and the Emilia-
Romagna region were largely due to overwhelmed hospitals”(91).
The fact that no distinction was made between “death by” and “death
with” coronavirus rendered the situation hopeless. Almost 96% of “COVID-
19 deaths” in Italian hospitals were patients with pre-existing illnesses. Three
quarters suffered from hypertension, more than a third from diabetes. Every
third person had a heart condition. As almost everywhere else, the average
age was above 80 years. The few people under 50 who died also had severe
underlying conditions(41).
The inaccurate method of reporting “coronavirus deaths” naturally spread
fear and panic, rendering the general public willing to accept the irrational
and excessive preventive measures installed by governments. These turned
out to have a paradoxical effect. The number of regular deaths increased
substantially over the number of “coronavirus deaths”. The Times reported
on April 15: England and Wales have experienced a record number of deaths
26
in a single week, with 6,000 more than average for this time of year. Only
half of those extra numbers could perhaps be attributed to the coronavirus(92).
There was a well-founded concern that the lockdown may have unintentional
but serious consequences for the public’s health(93).
It became increasingly clear that people avoided hospitals even when
faced with life-threatening events such as heart attacks because they were
afraid of catching the deadly virus. Patients with diabetes or hypertension
were no longer properly treated, tumour patients not adequately tended to.
The UK has always had massive problems with its health care system,
medical infrastructure and a shortage of medical personnel(94,95). Due to
Brexit, the UK also lacks urgently needed foreign specialists(96).
Many other countries have problems along the same lines. When the
influenza epidemic swept over the world in the winter of 2017/2018,
hospitals in the US were overwhelmed, triage tents were erected, operations
were cancelled and patients were sent home. Alabama declared a state of
emergency(97–99). The situation was little different in Spain, where hospitals
just collapsed(100,101), and in Italy, where intensive care units in large cities
ground to a halt(102).
The Italian health care system has been downsizing for years, the number
of intensive care beds is much lower than in other European countries.
Furthermore, Italy has the highest number of deaths from hospital-acquired
infections and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in all of Europe(103).
Also, Italian society is one of the oldest worldwide. Italy has the highest
proportion of over 65 year-olds (22.8%) in the European Union(104). Add to
that the fact that there is a large number of people with chronic lung and heart
disease, and we have a much greater number in the “high-risk groups” as
compared to other countries. In sum, many independent factors come
together to create a special case for Italy(105,106).
Since northern Italy was particularly affected, it would be interesting to
ask if environmental factors had an influence on the way things developed
there. Northern Italy has been dubbed the China of Europe with regard to its
fine particulate pollution(107). According to a WHO estimate, this caused over
8,000 additional deaths (without a virus) in Italy’s 13 biggest cities in
2006(108). Air pollution increases the risk of viral pulmonary disease in the
27
very young and the elderly(109). Obviously, this factor could generally play a
role in accentuating the severity of pulmonary infections(110).
Suspicions have been voiced that vaccination against various pathogens
such as flu, meningococci and pneumococci can worsen the course of
COVID-19. Investigations into this possibility are called for because Italy
indeed stands out with its officially imposed extensive vaccination
programme for the entire population.
Yet despite all these facts, the only pictures that remain imprinted on our
minds are the shocking scenes of long convoys of military vehicles carting
away endless numbers of coffins from the northern Italian town of Bergamo.
Vice chairman of the Federal Association of German Undertakers, Ralf
Michal, noted(111): in Italy, cremations are rather rare. That is why
undertakers were overburdened when the government ordered cremations in
the course of the coronavirus pandemic. The undertakers were not prepared
for that. There were not enough crematoriums and the complete infrastructure
was lacking. That is why the military had to help out. And this explains the
pictures from Bergamo. Not only was there no infrastructure, there was also a
shortage of undertakers because so many were in quarantine.
And finally, let us examine the United States, where only parts of the
country were severely affected. In states like Wyoming, Montana or West
Virginia, the number of “coronavirus deaths” was a two-digit figure
(Worldometers, middle of May, 2020).
The situation in New York was different. Here, doctors were
overwhelmed and did not know which patients to treat first, while in other
states, hospitals were eerily empty. New York was the centre of the epidemic,
where more than half of the COVID-19 deaths nationwide occurred (date:
May 2020). Most of the deceased lived in the Bronx. An emergency doctor
reported(112): “These people come way too late, but their reasoning is
understandable. They are afraid of being discovered. Most of them are illegal
immigrants without residence permits, without jobs and without any health
insurance. The highest mortality rate is recorded in this group of people”.
It would be of interest to learn how they were treated. Were they given
high doses of chloroquine as recommended by the WHO? About a third of
the Hispanic population carries a gene defect (glucose-6-phosphate
dehydrogenase) that causes chloroquine intolerance with effects that can be
28
lethal(113,114). More than half of the population in the Bronx is Hispanic.
Countries and regions can differ so widely with respect to a myriad of
factors that a true understanding of any epidemic situation cannot be obtained
without critical analysis of these determinants.
29
3
Corona-situation in Germany
The German populace should have been reassured that this country was wellpositioned
and that disturbing scenarios similar to those seen in northern Italy
or elsewhere need NOT be feared. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The
RKI issued warning after warning, and the government embarked on a
crusade of fear-mongering that defied description. Anyone who dared to
challenge the warning that the world was facing the greatest pandemic threat
of all times was defamed and censored.
The indicators for when which measures were supposedly necessary or no
longer necessary changed haphazardly according to demand. At the
beginning of March, it was the doubling rate for the numbers of infections
which at first should exceed 10 days; but when this “goal” was reached, the
rate had to be further slowed to 14 days. This objective was also quickly
achieved so a new criterion had to be issued: the reproduction factor (“R”),
which supposedly told us how many people became infected by one
contagious person. The authorities at first decided that this number must
decrease to less than 1. When this happened – in mid-March – they ran into
difficulties and set out to re-direct the number upward by increasing the
numbers of tests. At the end of May, a bit of creative thinking led to the idea
of defining a critical upper limit to the acceptable number of daily new
infections: 35 per 100,000 citizens in any town or region.
Now reflect that performing just 7,000 tests can be expected to generate at
least 35 false-positive results in total absence of the virus! Obviously, no
scientifically sound reasoning underlay any of the plans and measures
dictated by the authorities. It cannot be emphasised enough that infection
numbers are of no significance if one is not dealing with a truly dangerous
virus. Money and means should not be wasted on counting the number of
30
common colds every winter!
Arbitrariness and the lack of a plan wound their way through the
measures. At the beginning, facial masks were scorned and not used, even in
overcrowded buses. But when the epidemic was over, it became mandatory.
DIY stores could stay open for business while electronics markets had to
close. Jogging was OK, playing tennis taboo. Every state had its own
catalogue of fines; there had to be punishment since we were dealing with an
“epidemic of national concern”. But where was the logic behind all of these
measures? A closer look may help explain what had happened.
The German narrative
Late in the evening of January 27, 2020, the Bavarian Ministry of Health
announced Germany’s first coronavirus case, an employee of an automotive
supplier. A Chinese businesswoman had been on a visit there one week
earlier. The virus was subsequently detected in several other members of the
company. Most had no symptoms, none was seriously ill. All were isolated
and put in a 14-day quarantine. From then on, anyone returning from a “high
risk” area, be it China or Tyrol, was tested and put in quarantine. A few
scattered numbers of healthy “cases” were thereby discovered.
Then came carnival season in Germany and the western German state of
North Rhine-Westphalia is one of its centres where there is no holding back.
The first coronavirus patient here had partied in the middle of February
together with his wife and 300 other merry carnival revellers in the district of
Heinsberg. What happened next sounded the national alarm: coronavirus
outbreak in Heinsberg; many patients critically ill; local hospital
overwhelmed! Schools and day care centres were closed and all contact
persons put in quarantine. At the beginning of March, the Minister of Health,
Jens Spahn, still urged prudence. Mass events were cancelled, otherwise
overall calmness reigned.
But on March 9, alarm bells rang. The first coronavirus fatalities in
Germany occurred. A 78-year old man from the Heinsberg district and an 82-
year old woman from Essen succumbed to the virus. The man had a
multitude of pre-existing illnesses, among them diabetes and heart disease,
the woman died from pneumonia. Drosten warned against a threatening
31
coronavirus wave(115): “Autumn will be a critical time, that is obvious. At
that time, I expect a rapid increase of coronavirus cases with dire
consequences and many deaths…Who do we want to save then, a severely ill
80 year-old or a 35 year-old with raging viral pneumonia who would
normally die within hours, but would be over the worst after three days on a
ventilator?”.
The pandemic is declared
On March 11, the WHO declared the pandemic. The very next day, German
governors of state voted to cancel all mass gatherings. On the same day, a
report from France: all day care centres, schools, colleges and universities
have been closed until further notice. Germany followed suit: one day later,
the German states ordered all schools and day care centres closed from March
16. There was talk of a “tsunami” in the wake of which countless lives would
be claimed unless we managed to “flatten the curve”. All of a sudden,
everyone had a voice and an opinion, no matter whether astrophysicist or
trainee journalists, and no matter whether they had not an inkling of
knowledge about infectious diseases. Projections were presented every day,
exponential growth was explained to us on every channel, showing us how
difficult it is to grasp or to even stop this development because the rate of
infection seemed to double weekly. Without strict measures we would have
one million infections by mid-May. According to RKI President Wieler, the
number of fatalities in Germany would soar up and approach Italian numbers
within just a few weeks(116).
For the first time, there was mention of a possible lockdown. On March
14, the Federal Ministry of Health tweeted(117):
Attention FAKE NEWS!
It is claimed and rapidly being distributed that the Federal Ministry of Health/Federal
government will soon announce further massive restrictions to public life. This is
NOT true!
Two days later, on March 16, further massive restrictions to public life were
announced(118).
Public life was rapidly shut down. Clubs, museums, trade fairs, cinemas,
32
zoos, everything had to be closed. Religious services were prohibited,
playgrounds and sports facilities fenced off. Elective surgery would be
postponed. The primary goal: the health care system must not be
overwhelmed.
While alarmism was expanding here in Germany, someone else raised his
voice. Someone who really knows what he is doing and whom we have heard
of several times before, Professor John Ioannidis. Here is a summary of his
article “A fiasco in the making?”(119):
The current coronavirus disease, COVID-19, has been called a once-in-acentury
pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco. We
lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARSCoV-
2. Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries.
During long-lasting lockdowns, how can policymakers tell if they are doing
more good than harm? The data collected so far on how many people are
infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the
limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of
infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are
failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. No countries have
reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random
sample of the general population. Reported case fatality rates, like the
official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror – and
are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are
disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. The one
situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond
Princess cruise ship and its quarantined passengers. The case fatality rate
there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death
rate from COVID-19 is much higher. Adding to these extra sources of
uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general
U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%. If that is the true rate, locking down
the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may
be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat.
Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a
cliff and dies. Could the COVID-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some
say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called
mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades
33
can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in
nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of
people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalised in the
U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter. If we had not known about
a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the
number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem
unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season
seems to be a bit worse than average. The media coverage would have been
less than for an NBA game between the two most indifferent teams. One of
the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures
and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the
economy, society, and mental health.
Regrettably, this voice of reason remained unheard by our politicians and
their advisers. Instead, the prediction ventured by Professor Neil Ferguson,
Imperial College London, made the headlines: if nothing is done and the
virus allowed to spread uncontrolled, more than 500,000 people will die in
the UK and 2 million in the US(120). Not only did this make the rounds, it
struck fear into hearts and souls.
Incidentally, Ferguson is the same authority who predicted 136,000 deaths
due to mad cow disease (BSE), 200 million deaths due to avian flu and
65,000 deaths during the swine flu – in all cases there were ultimately a few
hundred(121). In other words, he was wrong every time. Do journalists
actually have a conscience and, if so, why do they not check the facts before
distributing their news? Naturally, here too it later became apparent that
Ferguson’s prediction was totally wrong. But this was never reported by the
media.
For the RKI, the headlines seemed to be just the right thing. It warned of
an exponential increase(122): “With this exponential growth, the world will
have 10 million infections within 100 days if we do not succeed in curbing
the number of new infections”. Model calculations were published that
predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths in Germany(123).
Politicians entered a race for voter popularity – who could profit the
most? Markus Söder, State President of Bavaria, presented himself as
“Action Man”, emanating force and determination in front of the cameras,
and declaring his intent to fight the virus to the finish with all the means at
34
his disposal. Söder surges ahead with the first draconian measures: stay-athome
order for Bavarians as of March 21. No visits to loved ones in
hospitals. No church services. Shops and restaurants closed. Among other
incredible measures.
Nationwide lockdown
What impression would it make on the world if each federal state in Germany
had its own rules? So the measures were hastily emulated throughout the
nation. The “stay-at-home command” sounded too negative, so we were
presented with a “lockdown” on March 23 in the guise of a “nine-point plan”.
This meant nationwide confinement orders. A far-reaching contact ban was
imposed, congregations of more than 2 people in public were forbidden.
Restaurants, hair dressers, beauty parlours, massage practices, tattoo studios
and similar businesses had to close. Violations of these contact bans were to
be monitored by a regulatory agency and failure to comply was to be
sanctioned. Penalty catalogues were hastily patched together. Some states
went to extremes. Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, the Saarland, Saxony and
Saxony-Anhalt enacted decrees that allowed leaving homes and entering
public spaces only with a “valid” reason. At the same time, hospitals were so
empty that they were able to accommodate patients from Italy and
France(124).
On March 25, the German parliament announced an “epidemic situation
of national concern”, so that two days later the hurriedly compiled new “law
to protect the population during an epidemic situation of national concern”
could be implemented – largely unnoticed by the general population. It
empowered the Federal Ministry of Health to determine, by decree, a series
of measures that violate the first article of the German constitution: Human
dignity is inviolable.
These political decisions were made in the absence of any evidence that
might have justified them. It was for that reason that we decided to write an
open letter to Chancellor Merkel(28) in which questions of fundamental
importance were raised. The intent was to give the government the chance to
turn back from the wrong track with dignity. But our opinions, and those of
many others who did not agree with the government line, were ignored and
35
dissenting voices were discredited in newspapers and the media. It goes
without saying that we never received an answer.
Instead, at the end of March, it was officially proclaimed that the virus
was still spreading too fast. Case numbers doubled every 5 days. The goal
must be to flatten the curve so the doubling time is extended to 10 days. Only
thus would we prevent the health care system from being overwhelmed(125).
The contents of an internal document of the German Ministry of the
Interior (GMI) were then released to the public. There one learned that the
worst-case scenario forecast 1.15 million fatalities if the virus was not
contained(126,127). If we look at the numbers of reported infections in the first
four weeks of March (calendar weeks (CW) 10–13), we can see that this
actually looks like exponential growth, exactly as the RKI proclaimed. And
that is how it was presented everywhere.
However, what the RKI did not point out was that in calendar week 12 the
number of tests had approximately tripled and increased again the following
week. The RKI apparently did not feel duty-bound to truth and clarification
towards the population. So therefore, are these figures distorted? Why didn’t
they correct the numbers? That could have been achieved by stating the
number of infections per 100,000 tests as shown in the second diagram.
36
The RKI text should rather have read as follows: “Dear fellow citizens,
our numbers show no exponential increase of new infections. There is no
need to worry.”
Indeed, the epidemic is literally “over the hill”, as you can nicely see from
the R-curve of the RKI, which was published on April 15 in the
Epidemiological Bulletin 17(128):
What is glaringly evident?
1) The epidemic had reached its peak at the beginning to the middle of
March, well before the lockdown on March 23.
2) The lockdown had no effect: numbers dropped no further after its
implementation.
37
April 2020: no reason to prolong the lockdown
How did things look in the middle of April when the decision of once again
prolonging the lockdown was pending?
Everything was really clear now. Just like the R-value, the number of
newly infected cases showed that the peak of infection had passed (Figure:
http://www.cidm.online). The upper curve depicts the number of “newly infected”
with the initial increase as officially presented; the lower shows those
numbers standardized to 100,000 tests. Columns show the actual numbers of
conducted tests.
38
The fact is that there had never been a danger of hospitals being
overwhelmed because there had never been an exponential growth of
infection numbers. There were thousands of empty beds. There never was a
giant “wave” of COVID-19 patients. Not because the measures were so
effective, but because the epidemic was over before they were put in place.
But all the hospitals postponed, or even suspended, all elective surgeries and
procedures such as hip or knee operations or check-ups for cancer patients.
Many hospitals reported occupancy reductions of up to 30% and more.
Doctors were put on short-time working hours(129).
The lockdown is extended
On April 15, Germany extended the lockdown. The rules for social distancing
and contact restrictions were prolonged. In public, social distancing of 1.5m
was mandatory and you were only allowed to be outside your domicile with
members of your family and one other person who was not part of your
household. The ban on meetings in houses of worship was prolonged. Social
events were prohibited. Some restrictions were eased. Shops with a retail
space of up to 800 square metres were allowed to re-open. Car dealers,
bicycle shops and book stores were excluded from this restriction and were
allowed to open their doors regardless of size. But amazingly, no matter
whether a crocheted scarf or a clinical face mask is used – masks became
mandatory!
Mandatory masks
There is simply a lack of clear evidence that people who are not ill or who are
not providing care to a patient should wear a mask to reduce influenza or
COVID-19 transmission(130).
We are not aware of any single scientifically sound and undisputed article
that would contradict the following:
1) There is no scientific evidence that symptom-free people without
cough or fever spread the disease.
2) Simple masks do not and cannot stop the virus.
39
3) Masks do not and cannot protect from infection.
4) Non-medical face masks have very low filter efficiency(131)
5) Cotton surgical masks can be associated with a higher risk of
penetration of microorganisms (penetration 97%). Moisture retention, reuse
of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of
infection(132).
Since the government enforced the use of masks, many elderly people
believed that they were safe while wearing them. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Wearing a mask can entail serious health hazards, especially
for people with pulmonary disease and cardiac insufficiency, for patients with
anxiety and panic disorders and of course for children. Even the WHO
originally stated that general wearing of masks did not serve any purpose(133).
What did the RKI say? In accordance with the shift in political opinion,
they also changed their previous recommendations and supported maskwearing.
“If people – even without symptoms – wore masks as a precaution,
it could minimize the risk of infection. Of note, this is not scientifically
documented.”
A report claiming that mask-wearing had provided positive effects was
basically flawed(134). According to the study, the effects (drop in numbers of
infections) became apparent 3–4 days after implementation of the regulation.
However, this is impossible. The RKI states: “An effect of the respective
measures can only be seen after a delay of 2–3 weeks because on top of the
incubation period (up to 14 days) there is a time delay between illness and
receipt of the reports.”(135)
In fact, there is no study to even suggest that it makes any sense for
healthy individuals to wear masks in public(136,137). One might suspect that
the only political reason for enforcing the measure is to foster fear in the
population.
Last argument for extension of lockdown: the impending
second wave?
The constant fear-spreading experts of the government obviously pursue the
same goal. In Germany, Drosten warned again and again. And somehow it
40
seemed as if every country had its own “Drosten”.
At the end of April, he again fantasized about the big-time wave in
Germany – now, of course, the second big wave(138): “Would the R-value
through carelessness … be once again more than 1 and thereby exponentially
increase virus spread, this would likely have devastating consequences. Since
the wave of infection would start everywhere at the same time, it would have
a different momentum.”
But where should this second wave of infection come from?
Drosten: We can learn this from the Spanish flu. It started at the end of
the First World War, and most of the 50 million victims died during the
second wave.
That is true. But at the time of the Spanish flu, antibiotics were not
available to treat secondary bacterial infections that were the main cause of
death(139). Consequently, people of all ages died. Whoever compares
COVID-19 to the Spanish flu is either completely clueless or deliberately
intends to spread fear.
It is clear that viruses change but do not simply disappear. Just as there
has always been a flu season, there has also always been a coronavirus
season(140).
Here we see the typical course of a coronavirus epidemic(141):
Does this look vaguely familiar and reminiscent of our RKI data with the
March peak?
But wait, this Finnish study stems from 1998!
41
So, if any government should decide they want a second wave, all they
need to do is to radically increase the number of tests in the annual
coronavirus season. This simple manipulation will not fail to trigger the next
laboratory pandemic.
Relaxing the restrictions with the emergency brake applied
Professor Stefan Homburg, Director of the Institute of Public Finance at the
University of Hannover, never tired of explaining why the RKI numbers
themselves called for immediate termination of all measures(142).
He was not the only one, several others raised their voices. But critical
opinions were completely ignored. Why? Did the government have an
exclusive contract with Drosten, who keeps on warning and warning: by
loosening restrictions, Germany will risk losing its lead in the fight against
the pandemic(143).
But eventually the time arrived. The beginning of May witnessed a
cautious reopening of shops. Schools and day care centres would soon be
able to admit children again. Contact restrictions were slightly relaxed and
life was restarted, but at a painfully slow pace.
But the RKI warns and warns and warns(144): “The reproduction factor is
more than 1 once again. It’s at 1.1, to be exact … ”.
Horror of horrors, were we too rash? Many were puzzled that the daily Rfactor
fluctuated erratically. This of course was due to the generally unknown
fact that when infection numbers are very low, the R-factor can be
manipulated at will simply by altering the number of tests conducted.
And then, the great scare: Do we possibly have excess mortality(145)?
Excess mortality? Really? Could it possibly have anything to do with the
collateral damage invoked by the unwarranted measures? This question was
posed by a senior member of the risk analysis division at the German
Ministry of the Interior. He produced a remarkable document in which the
risks of collateral damage were meticulously analysed. He arrived at the
conclusion that the measures were excessive, and that they caused immense
and irreparable collateral damage without providing any true benefits. The
synopsis of the paper was sent to ten external experts, including ourselves, to
have the numbers checked.
42
He then attempted to present the document to the Minister:
unsuccessfully. He then sent the document to his colleagues in risk
assessment divisions around the country. And was suspended for his efforts.
We stated in a press release that we considered the conclusions of the
paper to be very important. But the Ministry ridiculed the document, saying
that it was no more than a private opinion(146). The media chimed in and
considered the case closed.
Lockdown extended again!
At the end of May, just before the agreement on contact restrictions between
the government and the federal states expired, a further extension of the
measures was proclaimed until June 29.
On May 25, Minister of Health, Jens Spahn stated in the most widespread
German daily newspaper, “Under no circumstances should the impression be
gained that the pandemic is already over.”
Only chancellor Merkel could top this – and so she did 4 days later. In an
historic declaration, she announces to the depressed nation: “The pandemic
has just begun!”
And this at a time when the epidemics were all over throughout Europe.
But an extension of the lockdown seemed to make sense in the light of a
recent article published in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific
journals in the world. Only research groups of high standing have realistic
chances of seeing their names in print in this journal. Imperial College
London rallied such a group, among whom the name Neil Ferguson may ring
a bell. In a remarkable study, the investigators presented a computer-based
analysis showing that the global lockdown had saved many millions of
lives(147).
Known only to few was the fact that a string of protests by scientists of
international standing rained into Nature’s office. All pointed to the
fundamental flaws in the analysis that had caused false conclusions to be
drawn. Correctly handled, the data actually showed the opposite: the
lockdown had had no effect on the course of the pandemic. Readers who
wish to read the paper should not forget to look at these critical comments
that follow after the article(148).
So, while other countries like Denmark at no time recommended that
43
healthy people who move around in public generally wear face masks(149)
and other countries like Latvia were well on their way to freedom, Merkel
and friends decided against too much liberty for their people. The masks must
stay on!
44
4
Too much? Too little? What
happened?
Overburdened hospitals
The pictures from Italy and Spain incited fear. Mortally ill people and no
available ventilators? How dreadful. Deaths were depicted as slow, merciless
drownings. We were shown what happens when hospital capacity reaches its
limits and beyond. During all the deliberations about what was to be done in
Germany, there was always – first and foremost – the fear stoked by the RKI
that such scenarios happening in Germany could not be ruled out. As a result,
ventilators were purchased, intensive care beds were held in reserve,
operations were postponed or cancelled. In Berlin a new hospital for 1,000
patients was hurriedly built – in 38 days – and then, when it was completed,
not one patient in sight(150).
We simply must take a closer look at this. At the beginning of March it
became clear that the epidemic was sweeping through Germany. Was our
health care system well prepared? Professor Uwe Janssens, President of the
Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine,
gave the all-clear in the “Deutschlandfunk” (German World Service)(151):
“We have enough intensive care beds!”. Even if we were to have as many
coronavirus infections as Italy, we had approximately 28,000 beds in
intensive care units, 25,000 of which were equipped with ventilators, so
nearly 34 beds per 100,000 citizens. This was like no other country in
Europe. Professor Reinhard Busse, leader of the specialist field “Management
of the Health Care System” at the Technical University in Berlin, gave the
all-clear as well: “Even if we had conditions like in Italy, we would be
45
nowhere near to being overburdened”(152).
But the RKI kept fostering fear. The “number of intensive care beds will
not be sufficient”, Wieler, president of the RKI and trained veterinarian,
announced at the beginning of April(153). Why? Wieler explained: “The
epidemic continues and the number of fatalities will keep going up”.
Actually, the real explanation – kept under lock and key at that time – was
quite different. It came to light in May, when a previously confidential
document appeared on the website of the German Ministry of the
Interior(154). The shocking contents confirmed circulating rumours. The
document, dating to mid-March, was the minutes of a meeting of the
coronavirus task-force. There, one was astounded to learn that fearmongering
was the official agenda created to manage the epidemic. All the
pieces of the puzzle then fell into place. Everything had been planned. The
high numbers of infection were purposely reported because the numbers of
deaths would “sound too trivial”. The central goal was to achieve a massive
shock effect. Three examples are given how to stir up primal fears in the
general population:
1) People should be scared by a detailed description of dying from
COVID-19 as “slow drowning”. Imagining death through excruciating slow
suffocation incites the most dread.
2) People should be told that children were a dangerous source of
infection because they would unwittingly carry the deadly virus and kill their
parents.
3) Warnings about alarming late consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infections
were to be scattered. Even though not formally proven to exist, they would
frighten people.
Altogether, this strategy would enable all intended measures to be
implemented with general acceptance by the public.
HORRIBLE!
Now that the method in the madness is known, it becomes more
understandable why Wieler steadfastly adhered to his projections. Numbers
of infections were used to calculate the number of intensive care beds that
would be needed, without taking into account that 90% of infected
individuals would not fall seriously ill. And that the majority of patients who
46
did require hospitalisation would recover and be dismissed.
Simply adding the daily number of new infections to the curve (top curves
in the graph) was of course senseless. The recoveries should have been
subtracted from the number of positively tested persons if a realistic indicator
of hospital burden had really been sought.
Strictly speaking, one would also have to subtract the deceased, but since
there were so few – tragic and sad as that was for every individual case, it
made no difference in the graphic representation.
The fact is that we were never at any risk of our health care system
collapsing. In mid-April there was NO REASON for further measures. All
should have been revoked immediately. While the hospitals waited for non-
47
existent coronavirus patients, those genuinely requiring treatment were not
admitted. Beds were empty. Hospitals ran into financial problems. Many
applied for short-time work for doctors and nursing staff – in the midst of the
imagined crisis(155). The situation in other countries was similar. Thousands
of US physicians were placed on administrative leave because the number of
routine outpatient visits dropped by a landslide(156).
Shortage of ventilators?
At the commencement of the pandemic, experts contended that invasive
ventilation would be a first-line requirement to rescue COVID-19 patients
from a horrible death by suffocation. At the same time, this measure would
minimize the risk of infection of medical personnel. As a consequence, the
German government decided to purchase and store thousands of ventilators in
reserve.
This turned out to be a very bad bet(157–161).
Artificially ventilated patients require very close attention(162). Oxygen is
forced through a tube into the lungs. It is not uncommon for bacteria to hitch
a ride and then cause life-threatening pneumonia. The risk of these hospitalacquired
infections rises by the day, which is why medical students learn that
the ventilator should be used no longer than is absolutely necessary.
In contrast, COVID-19 patients were often put on ventilation early and
without true need, and kept on the apparatus far longer than they ever should
have been. Why? Because it was officially stipulated that invasive ventilation
was the best means to reduce the risk of virus spread via aerosol to the
personnel. However, aerosols probably play no important role in disease
transmission(163). The sole fact that SARS-CoV-2 can be found in aerosol
droplets(164) does not mean that it is there in sufficient quantities to cause
illness(165).
How many lives were lost because of this advice?
Many specialists later stated that COVID-19 patients were intubated and
ventilated for too long and too often(160,161). The risks were high and success
more than questionable. Professor Gerhard Laier-Groeneveld from the lung
clinic in Neustadt advised that intubation should be avoided in any event. His
48
COVID-19 patients received oxygen with simple respiratory masks and he
lost not a single life(160).
Professor Thomas Voshaar, Chair of the Association of Pneumology
Clinics, shared the same view(161). He pointed out that the high death rates in
other countries “should be reason enough to question this strategy of early
intubation”. At the time of his report, he had mechanically ventilated one of
his 40 patients. The patient subsequently died. All the others survived.
Here is a shortened version of a radio interview with palliative physician
Dr Matthias Thöns(166): “Politics these days has a very one-sided orientation
towards intensive care treatment, towards buying more ventilators and
offering ICU beds as a reward. But we must remember that most of the
severely ill COVID-19 patients are very old people with multiple underlying
diseases; 40% of those come heavily care-dependent from assisted living
facilities. Previously, this group would ordinarily receive more palliative
instead of intensive care. But now, a new disease is diagnosed and this whole
client base is turned into intensive care patients.”
He points out that according to a Chinese study, 97% die despite maximal
therapy (including ventilation). Of those who survive, only a small number is
able to return to their former lives, many of them left with severe disabilities.
These are circumstances that most seniors would refuse to risk. He rightly
says that critically ill patients should openly be told the truth about their
condition. They should themselves decide which course they wish to take:
intensive care treatment in isolation, or symptomatic treatment in the circle of
loved ones. The individual will should have highest priority. Thöns is quite
sure that most people would prefer the second option.
Were the measures appropriate?
It became clear fairly early that SARS-CoV-2 was not a killer virus and there
never had been an exponential increase in new infections. The price for
attempting to contain the virus was absurdly high.
What did the government do right?
49
?
The authors have no answer to this question. They look forward to receiving
yours.
What did the government do wrong?
It proclaimed an epidemic of national concern that did not exist
It deprived citizens of their rights
It made arbitrary instead of evidence-based decisions
It intentionally spread fear
It enforced senseless lockdown and mask-wearing
It devastated the economy and destroyed livelihoods
It disrupted the health care system
It inflicted immense suffering on the populace
What should our government have done?
It should have done what the chancellor and ministers solemnly declared
when they were sworn into office:
“I swear that I will use my power for the WELL-BEING of the German
public, to further its ADVANTAGES, to prevent DAMAGE, to PRESERVE
and DEFEND the constitution and the federal statutes, to diligently fulfil my
duty and practice just treatment towards everyone.”
50
5
Collateral damage
Dr David L. Katz, President of the True Health Initiative, asked on March 20
if our fight against the coronavirus was worse than the disease(167). Could
there not be more specific means to combat the disease? What about all the
collateral damage?
Stanford Professor Scott Atlas said during an interview that under the
misassumption that we have to contain COVID-19, we have created a
catastrophic situation in the health care sector(168). Irrational fears were
generated because the disease as a whole is a mild one. Thus, there is no
reason for comprehensive testing in the general population and it should be
done only where appropriate, namely in hospitals and nursing homes. At the
end of April, Atlas published an article entitled “The data are in – stop the
panic and total isolation”(169).
In Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, presiding officer of the German
parliament, stated that not absolutely everything must be subordinate to the
protection of life(170).
“If there is anything at all that has an absolute value in our constitution, it
is human dignity which is inviolable. But it does not preclude that we have to
die.” The media immediately flared back in righteous disgust: “Human dignity
versus human life – can you balance one against the other?”(171).
Many still fail to comprehend that we have sacrificed both.
Proponents of the pointless measures argue that every person has the right
to grow as old as possible. Even if the virus were only the straw that broke
the camel’s back, it was still at fault. Without the virus, the deceased may
have lived months or even years longer. It is our moral duty to sacrifice our
51
personal wants and needs when lives of others are at stake. The economy can
recover, the dead cannot. The Merkel mantra, chanted day and night by her
ardent followers: “Protecting the health of our citizens must, at all costs,
remain our supreme goal.”
Honourable as this may sound, it betrays an alarming inability to
comprehend the essence of public welfare. The following numbers have
already been presented but because of their importance, they will be repeated
here. During the course of this entire epidemic, a maximum number of 10 in
10,000 over 80 year-olds have died with or from the virus. The number of
“true” COVID-19 deaths cannot be higher than 1–2 per 10,000. How many
human lives were really prolonged by the horrendous measures? Maybe 2–4
per 10,000? Or even 4–8? But definitely not more. And at what cost?
The one employee of the GMI who dared to compile an analysis of the
collateral damage to the health care system was suspended. The government
was not interested. Nothing can be placed over human life. But what are the
consequences for health and welfare of the populace if the economy collapses
and people are confronted with the end of their existence?
Economic consequences
It will strike all countries. The global economic crisis could plunge 500
million people into poverty, so stated in a position paper by the UN(172).
The US Federal Reserve (FED) expects a dramatic decline of up to 30%
in American economic performance(173). FED director Jerome Powell
assumes a 20% to 25% increase in the unemployment rate. Almost 36.5
million people have lost their jobs. It is “the most traumatic job loss in the
history of the US economy,” says Gregory Daco, US Chief Economist of the
Oxford Economics Institute(174).
The EU commission predicts a deep recession of historic magnitude for
Europe(175).
According to their prognosis, the economy will shrink a good 7% and will
not completely recover in the next year.
In Germany too, the economy is starting to crumble. Since the second half
of March it is down to 80% of normal economic performance(176). Reduced
hours compensation is registered for about 10 million employees. Without
52
short-time work, the unemployment rate would have increased dramatically,
similar to the US. In April we have “only” 300,000 additional
unemployed(177). But this will not be the end of the story, not by a long shot.
The government boasted that they are weaving safety nets, the “greatest
rescue package in Germany’s history” will help mitigate the collateral
damage(178). But that rescue package is ridiculous in relation to the damage
that has been done. Countless people are falling through the net. Existences
have been destroyed and lives have been lost. They cannot be salvaged by
safety nets.
Disruption of medical care
Many who were ill were afraid to visit hospitals for fear of catching the
“killer virus”.
Often older people would rather not “be a burden” to their doctors, who
they thought were battling to save COVID-19 patients.
Patients requiring medical examinations were turned away, all that was
not deemed of “vital importance” cancelled or postponed.
Medical check-ups were not performed.
Operations were postponed to free up capacity for “coronavirus
patients”.
Domestic violence against women and children increased.
The number of suicides rose.
Drugs and suicide
Following the financial crisis of 2008, the number of suicides rose in
countries all over the world. According to the National Health Group Well
Being Trust, unemployment, economic downfall and despair could now drive
75,000 Americans to drug abuse and suicide(179). The Australian government
estimates a rise in suicides of 50%(180), a number 10 times higher than the
number of “coronavirus deaths”. Unemployment and poverty are also
predicted to markedly increase suicide rates in Germany(181).
53
Heart attack and stroke
Unemployment increases the risk of heart attack to an extent comparable to
cigarette smoking, diabetes and hypertension(182). But where did all the
patients with heart attacks disappear to? Admissions to emergency care units
dropped 30% as compared to the previous month. Not because the patients
were miraculously cured but because they were terrified of catching the
deadly virus in the hospital. Preliminary symptoms went unheeded, even
though such symptoms are often the harbinger of a deadly attack and need to
be closely attended to in hospital.
“This is a most dangerous development… There are now 50% fewer
patients with mild symptoms in the emergency room,” explains Dr Sven
Thonke, chief physician at the Clinic for Neurology in Hanau in a newspaper
interview(181). Many pending strokes initially cause mild symptoms such as
dizziness, speech, visual problems and muscle weakness. Thonke: “There are
now 50% fewer patients with mild-symptoms in the emergency room.” This
is extremely worrisome because more often than not mild symptoms herald
the severe stroke that can be rapidly fatal if the emergency is not immediately
tended to.
Other ailments
According to the scientific institute of the AOK (German health insurance
company), the following diagnoses dropped considerably in April: 51%
fewer respiratory diseases, 47% fewer diseases of the digestive tract, and
29% fewer injuries and poisonings(183).
Care of tumour patients was catastrophic. Monitoring of tumour treatment
was no longer conducted at the required levels. Control examinations were
postponed or cancelled. Patients waited in agony for the next appointment –
alone with their fears and the single remaining question: how much time was
still left to them.
Cancelled operations
30 million elective surgeries were postponed or cancelled worldwide during
54
the first 12 weeks of the pandemic(184). In 2018, 1.4 million operations were
performed on average every month. 50–90% of all scheduled operations were
postponed or not performed in March, April and May 2020. This translates to
at least 2 million operations that would normally have been performed. The
consequences must be profound.
Further consequences for the elderly
In Germany, more than 1,000 people over the age of 80 die every day(185).
While we are taking drastic measures to prevent them from dying of COVID-
19, we are making their lives less worth living. This cannot but impinge on
life expectancy.
Quality of life
Especially in old age – when many friends have already passed on and the
body no longer works the way it once did – life is not about how many more
days or years but about a life worth living. That could be accomplished by
exercise and remaining active, through social contacts, by taking recreational
holidays, visiting events and even shopping sprees, with regular visits to the
sauna or a fitness studio or the daily walk to the corner café.
But what happens when, all of a sudden, the café and everything else is
closed? No more visits to old friends, no more social events. And no visitors
either.
Loneliness and isolation
Functioning social networks safeguard the elderly from loneliness. Five to
twenty percent of senior German citizens feel lonely and isolated. After the
lockdown, almost all contact with other people stopped for months, which
must have worsened these feelings. For those who cannot leave the house
unassisted, nursing services arrange “senior social groups”, where the elderly
are picked up once a week and then taken safely home again. It’s not much,
but it’s so important to be with other people again and devastating when no
longer there.
55
Terminal care
Yes, every individual has the right to reach as old an age as possible. But
every person nearing the end of their life should also have the right to decide
how they want to go. Most do not fear the end. As the time approaches,
people become increasingly detached and willing to embark on their last
journey.
When we hear talk about the “older people” and we are told that it is our
moral duty to protect them, many picture sprightly seniors who are enjoying
their time on ocean liners. In reality, the endangered elderly are multi-morbid
individuals at the end of their lives. People who have not been able to leave
their beds for days, weeks or months. People whose tumours have spread
throughout their bodies and are in constant pain. People who cannot go on
anymore and maybe do not want to go on. People who sometimes just wait
for a kind fate to relieve them of their suffering.
Amidst all the protective measures for the high-risk groups in retirement
and nursing homes, at the end the individual decision should have the highest
priority. Most no longer care whether their loved ones bring the coronavirus
to them, as long as someone is there to hold their hand, to talk about the past,
and to whisper I love you and farewell(186).
Innocent and vulnerable: our children
Children – like the elderly – are the most vulnerable in our society and it is
our duty to care for them. Millions of children in the world are suffering
acutely from the coronavirus measures. “The coronavirus strikes more
children and their families than those who are actually gripped by the
infections,” says Cornelius Williams, Head of the UNICEF Child Protection
League(187).
Mental/psychological stress
Children cannot thrive without social contacts. Separation from key people
like grandma and grandpa, auntie and uncle, their best friends – the closed
schools, inaccessible playgrounds and barred sports fields disrupt their lives.
Social ethicists point out how vital it is for children to be in contact with their
56
peers(188).
Educational deficits
Children have a right to education. Since the schools have been closed,
millions of students are lagging behind according to an estimate of the
German Teacher Association. Their president, Heinz-Peter Meidinger, sees
educational deficits for approximately 3 million children, especially in
students from difficult social backgrounds and from impoverished
families(189).
Physical violence
Tens of thousands of children in Germany become victims of violence and
abuse every year(190). Crime statistics from 2018 show that
3 children die in the aftermath of physical violence every week
10 children are physically or mentally abused every day
40 children are sexually abused every day
And these, of course, are only the known cases. Can you imagine the
situation in coronavirus times?
When parents are stressed, on the brink of losing their jobs and facing
financial ruin?
When arguments and quarrels become a daily occurrence?
With increased alcohol consumption?
When children are at home day after day, with no way of escape?
Teachers who normally play important roles in safeguarding endangered
children are gone. Who then should notify the youth welfare office should the
need arise?
The government’s commissioner for abuse, Johannes-Wilhelm Rörig,
issued an urgent warning. There were indications from the quarantined town
of Wuhan that the cases of domestic violence had tripled during the “trappedat-
home” time. There were “equally alarming numbers” from Italy and Spain.
57
Consequences for the world’s poorest
Many in this country took the opportunity to get their house and garden back
into shape during the coronavirus crisis. Understandably, since home-office
work was only semi-effective for want of equipment and slow internet
connections. Actually, the majority of the middle class and the affluent were
not doing badly. Well, the neighbour who now has to apply for Hartz IV
(unemployment benefits) will surely get back on his feet. People tend to think
as far as their front door, maybe a bit beyond, but that’s it. Many are not
aware that the most severe consequences often affect the poorest of the poor.
One must not close one’s eyes to the fact that the existence and lives of
countless people are threatened.
Existential consequences
In India, there are hundreds of millions of day-labourers, many of whom led a
hand-to-mouth existence before the coronavirus restrictions robbed them of
their livelihoods. Now they have no more means to survive. They are
“protected” against the coronavirus and are in turn left to starve.
In many African countries, coronavirus lockdowns are brutally enforced
by police and military. Whoever shows his face on the streets is beaten.
Children, who usually survive on their one meal in school, are forbidden to
leave the house. They, too, can starve.
At the end of April, the Head of the UN World Food Program, David
Beasley, gave a warning before the UN Security Council: because of
coronavirus, there is a danger that the world will face a “hunger pandemic of
biblical proportions”(191). “It is expected that lockdowns and economic
recessions will lead to a drastic loss of income among the working poor. On
top of this, financial aid from overseas will decrease, which will hit countries
like Haiti, Nepal and Somalia, just to name a few. Loss of revenue from
tourism will doom countries like Ethiopia, since it represents 47 percent of
national income.”
Consequences for medical care and maintenance of health
Medical care is a luxury that only a few in the poorest countries can afford.
58
Advances and positive developments of recent years are now in danger of
collapse.
Vaccination campaigns against the measles were suspended in many
countries. Although measles rarely cause death in western countries, 3–6% of
the infected people in poor countries die, and those who survive often have
life-long disabilities. The virus has claimed 6,500 child deaths in the Congo
Republic(192).
Between 2003 and 2013, Zimbabwe succeeded in lowering yearly malaria
infections from 155 per 1,000 inhabitants to just 22. Now, and within a short
time, there have been more than 130 deaths and 135,000 infections. Two
thirds of all fatalities were < 5 year-old children.
According to the WHO, malaria deaths in sub-Saharan Africa could rise
to 769,000 in 2020, which would double the number for 2018. If so, they
would be thrown back to a “mortality standard” of 20 years ago. The
probable reason for this catastrophe is the fact that insecticide-treated
mosquito nets can no longer be adequately distributed.
Are the malaria deaths in Zimbabwe and the measles deaths in the Congo
only precursors of what is in store for the continent?
Synopsis
With the prescribed measures, was our government able to prolong the lives
of people who would leave us in the next days, months or perhaps a few
years? Maybe, maybe not. Were many lives saved through these measures?
They certainly were not, because these restrictions were imposed when the
epidemic was already subsiding.
One thing is certain. The immeasurable grief that these measures have
inflicted cannot possibly be put into words or numbers.
59
6
Did other countries fare better –
Sweden as a role model?
While we were lectured every day on the “pseudo-exponential” growth of
infections and talked into thinking that our health system would collapse if
drastic measures were not strictly enforced, a few other countries chose a
different path. They did not establish a curfew, they left restaurants, fitness
studios, and libraries etc. open to the public. Sweden is an example(193).
Epidemiologist Professor Anders Tegnell, who obviously learned from
mistakes he had made during the swine-flu epidemic, and his predecessor,
Johan Giesecke, who at an early stage pointed out that only the
implementation of evidence-based measures made any sense, both decided
that lockdowns were not only pointless, but dangerous. Giesecke explained in
an interview(194):
“There are only two measures that have a genuine scientific background.
One of these is hand-washing and we know this since the work of Ignaz
Semmelweis 150 years ago. The other is social distancing. Many of the
measures taken by European governments have no scientific basis. Closing
the borders for example is useless and does not help. Also, the closing of
schools has never proven to be effective.”
From a scientific stance, school closings are indeed known to make no
sense(89).
It did make sense, however, to count on the individual sense of
responsibility of the citizens, and on informational and educational
campaigns. People were informed on how to protect themselves – and they
did: without fear-mongering, without panic scenarios, lockdown, without
threat of a fine, without massive restrictions on their liberties.
60
Executive WHO director Mike Ryan called Sweden a “role model” in the
fight against the coronavirus(195).
Undeniably, Sweden did a lot of things right. But it reaped disgust and
disapproval from its neighbours. The German press left no stone unturned to
badmouth the Swedish way:
Sweden’s special path apparently failed (Deutschlandfunk, April 4,
2020)
Consequences cannot be predicted – 10% mortality rate: Sweden’s lax
special path during the coronavirus crisis is threatening to fail (Focus,
April 17, 2020)
Coronavirus in Sweden – Is the country heading for a catastrophe?
(RND, April 24, 2020)
Politicians also had their say.
Karl Lauterbach (SPD) accused Swedish men and women of acting
irresponsibly. “Crudely put, many of the elderly are sacrificed so that the
cafés do not have to close.”
Minister-President of Bavaria, Markus Söder, said: “This liberal course
claims VERY, VERY MANY victims …”
As a matter of fact, the epidemic in Sweden took a comparable course as
that in other countries.
Homburg describes this in an interview(196): “It seems that they want to
avoid at all costs acknowledging that there is an example to the opposite of
their own misguided policy. They have tried with every means at their
disposal – fake news followed by more fake news – to throw Sweden off its
chosen path. But Sweden stayed the course.”
Could we have taken this path in Germany? Count on the individual sense
of responsibility of the citizens and on information campaigns?
A favourite counter argument is Sweden’s population density. With 23
inhabitants per square kilometre it is about 10 times lower than in Germany,
so it is argued that it might work there, but never here. This would also apply
to Iceland, which is another positive example of how to master the
coronavirus crisis without lockdowns. Almost all of the 1,800 infected people
recovered. 10 COVID-19 deaths were registered – without any drastic
61
lockdown. Many restaurants and schools remained open and congregations of
up to 20 people were allowed.
This may be true, but here we also have a low population density. So let
us look instead at Hong Kong with 7.5 million residents and a population
density of 6,890 people per square kilometre. And what a surprise: Here, too,
it worked! It was a little more restrictive than Sweden and Iceland maybe, but
nevertheless without complete lockdown(197).
Or let us look at Japan (126 million inhabitants, population density 336
per square kilometre) or South Korea.
Japan and South Korea were among the first countries outside of China to
be affected by the outbreak. Contrary to China’s draconian measures, the
mass quarantines in wide parts of Europe and in major US cities, regular life
continued in Japan for a large part of the population. Restaurants stayed open
– without a serious disaster(198). Japan has a very small number of
coronavirus infections – possibly because they did not do much testing.
Now, we know that the number of infections is of no significance. So let
us look at the really important issue, namely the number of deceased: this,
too, is extremely low. Much wrong cannot have been done in Japan!
In contrast to Japan, South Korea performed more testing than any other
country, but shutdown of public life was also largely avoided. No cities were
cordoned off, nor general curfews imposed. Public institutions, shops,
restaurants and cafés stayed open(199).
South Korea banked on 1) informing the public and 2) testing and tracing.
Mass testing was performed in specially erected drive-through centres.
Radical transparency was ensured by a tracking app that tagged the
whereabouts of the infected persons.
Sweden, Iceland, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan – all these examples
have confirmed what recognised experts have said all along: lockdowns are
not necessary. They cause massive social and economic damage that cannot
justify any possible benefits. But were there benefits at all?
Are there benefits of lockdown measures?
At the end of 2019, the WHO published a document describing various
measures to be taken in case of a future pandemic(200). The major goal would
62
be, as we have heard before, to “flatten the curve” by reducing the number of
new daily infections. A number of measures were considered “Out” from the
very beginning: they were NOT recommended IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES!
Hmm – so how come everything happened as it did? If it had been
possible, would the world have also been put under UV-light and the
humidity raised beyond the tropics?
After telling us what should definitely not be done, the WHO went on to
describe other measures – lockdown etc. – that it deemed more worthy of
recommendation. Hidden in an appendix was, admittedly, a note that the
recommendations had no scientific basis.
Several critical scientists came to the conclusion early on that lockdown
was the wrong path. Among others, Nobel laureate Professor Michael Levitt
spoke out. He considered the lockdown a “gigantic mistake” and called for
more appropriate measures that should specifically aim to protect the
vulnerable groups(201).
Nonetheless, most countries followed the “role model” China.
63
All of Italy was completely quarantined from March 10 by a stay-at-home
order. Exceptions applied only in emergencies, for important work orders and
for errands that could not be postponed. 60 million people were under house
arrest and the streets were totally empty for a whole two months. Other
countries like Spain, France, Ireland, Poland undertook similar action. With
what effect? The epidemic is over, so let us look at the death toll – keeping in
mind that the numbers are grossly inflated because of faulty counting
methods and case definition.
Did fewer people die in countries with lockdown measures?
When we look at the death rates per 1 million inhabitants for some European
countries with lockdown (alphabetically, first 13 columns), we see that the
numbers appear to vary quite considerably. The median number is around
340 (red bar represents mean with standard deviation). Realise, however, that
this is low in comparison to something in the order of 10,000 deaths per
million that occur annually in Germany and other European countries. And
that the coronavirus numbers are grossly exaggerated because most derive
from deaths with rather than death from the virus. Divide them by at least 5
to arrive at realistic numbers. Then, the variations lose meaning. Respiratory
infections caused by many agents similarly sweep like gusts of wind that
blow 20 or 100 of 10,000 leaves from a tree. Every loss is sad, but most are
fateful. Preventive measures need to be appropriate so as to avoid collateral
damage that would sweep other leaves from the tree.
The press relentlessly emphasized that Sweden would pay a high price for
its liberal path. In actuality, we see that Sweden without lockdown is not
significantly different when compared to countries with lockdown. South
Korea, Japan and Hong Kong as well do not conspicuously stand out with an
exorbitantly high number of so called “corona deaths”. Quite the contrary is
the case.
64
So what do we see: countries without lockdown measures did not slide
into a catastrophe.
We know that COVID-19 can run a fatal course in elderly patients with
underlying conditions. This leads to the next important question.
Were high-risk groups better protected in countries with lockdown?
The simple answer is, No.
Approximately half of the “coronavirus victims” died in care facilities and
retirement homes, no matter where you look. In Western countries, these
numbers vary from 30% to 60%(202). Countries with relatively drastic
lockdowns like Ireland (60%), Norway (60%) or France (51%) have no better
figures than Sweden (45%). Nursing homes require specific protection which
general lockdown measures can in no way achieve.
A sensible concept for protection of genuinely vulnerable groups
compliant with ethical rules and regulations(203) would have solved the
problem.
Would immediate suspension of the lockdown have had dire consequences?
Let us look at the Czech Republic. From March 16, curfews were instated,
citizens were only allowed to go to work, to go grocery shopping, to see a
doctor or to go for walks in public parks. Like everywhere, the lockdown
could not prevent the increase in infections. By court decision, the measures
had to be rescinded on April 24. Was there a new wave of new infections and
65
deadly casualties? Oh – it really seems so! Is the Czech Republic
experiencing the much-feared second wave of COVID-19 infections – a
scenario feared all across the continent? Of course not! The number of tests
has been increased(204).
These data just illustrate how irrelevant and misleading the numbers of
false-positive “new cases” are when the virus is more or less gone. This is
confirmed by looking at the number of daily deaths. With a corresponding
delay due to the incubation period, there should be a significant increase in
the middle of July (rectangle). But the numbers kept sinking and the epidemic
in the country was over as well (Worldometers, July 2020).
66
This scenario of another “wave of infections” is typical for many
countries. It is often misused to maintain fear in the population and to
prolong senseless measures(205).
In fact, the epidemic followed essentially the same course all over Europe.
The effects of the lockdown were exclusively negative.
In a few countries such as Israel, there currently seems to be a second
increase in the number of daily deaths. Media revel in spreading news of the
dreaded second wave. But do not be fooled. Look closely and inform
yourself. Numbers must always be set in relation – to the number of
residents, number of PCR tests, average number of total deaths. If the number
of people who die with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is small, as in
Israel, perfectly irrelevant increases (e.g. from 2 to 6) can be turned into
sensational news: the death toll has tripled! Interestingly, at the height of the
COVID-19 epidemic in March, Israel’s overall deaths per month dropped to
the lowest rate in four years. So there was never even a first “COVID-19
wave”. In July, the number of so-called “COVID-19 deaths” per 1 million
population was not even half as high as in Germany (Worldometers, July
2020).
So which measures would have actually been correct?
Simple: a resolute protection of the vulnerable groups, especially those in
nursing and care facilities. Period.
67
7
Is vaccination the universal
remedy?
“There can be no return to normality until we have a vaccine,” declares
Michael Kretschmer, Minister-President of Saxony(206).
More and more voices were raised that we needed a vaccine before we
could return to normal life.
At the beginning of June, the German Federal Ministry of Finance issued
a plan to boost the economy: Item 53: “The coronavirus pandemic ends when
a vaccine is available”(207)! This is hysterical! Since when can a government
decide how and when a pandemic ends?
On Easter Sunday, Bill Gates was allotted ten minutes prime time to
address the German nation on television(208).
Ingo Zamperoni (TV host): “It is becoming increasingly clear that we can
only get a grip on this pandemic if we develop a vaccine.”
Bill Gates: “We will ultimately administer this newly developed vaccine
to 7 billion people, so we cannot afford problems with adverse side effects.
However, we will make the decision to use the vaccine on a smaller data
basis than usual. This will enable rapid progress to be made.”
Rapid progress on a small data basis? Is this the right way to fight a
disease with relative low fatality rate?
Remarkably, start-up financing for the global search for a coronavirus
vaccine was accomplished at the beginning of May by sleight of hand. The
EU collected almost 7.5 billion euro with their donor conference. Germany
and France pledged a large portion. A special programme was launched by
our government to serve this purpose. The plan is to contribute 750 million
euro toward the development of a vaccine.
68
But does vaccination really make sense? How vulnerable are we towards
the virus? How many lives are threatened that need to be protected?
On the question of immunity against COVID-19
A short excursion into the field of immunology.
What does immunity against coronaviruses depend on?
The coronavirus binds via protein projections (so-called spikes) that
recognise specific molecules (receptors) on our cell. This can be likened to
virus hands grasping the handles of doors that then open to allow entry. After
multiplication, viral progenies are released and can infect other cells.
Immunity against coronaviruses rests on two pillars: 1) antibodies, 2)
specialised cells of our immune system, the so-called helper lymphocytes and
killer lymphocytes.
When a new virus enters the body and causes illness, the immune system
responds by mobilising these arms of defence. Both are trained to specifically
recognise the invading virus, and both are endowed with the gift of long-term
memory. Upon re-invasion by the virus, they are recruited to the new battle
sites, their prowess bolstered through their previous encounter with the
sparring partner.
Many different antibodies are generated, each specifically recognising a
tiny part of the virus. Note that only the antibodies that bind the “hands” of
the virus are protective because they can stop the virus from gripping the
69
handles of the door (step 1). Classical viral vaccines are designed to make our
immune system produce such antibodies. It is believed that an individual will
thus become immune to the virus.
Three points require emphasis.
1. If you are tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and nothing is found this
does not mean that you were not infected. Severe symptoms often
correlate with high production of antibodies, mild symptoms only lead
to low antibody levels and many asymptomatic infections probably
occur without any antibody production.
2. If antibodies are found this does not mean that you are immune.
Current immunological tests cannot selectively detect protective
antibodies directed against the “hands” of the virus. Other antibodies
show up at the same time. Testing cannot give any reliable
information on the “immune status” of an individual and, as will
follow next, is essentially useless.
3. The outcome of an encounter between “protective” antibodies and the
virus is not “black or white”, not a “now or never”. Numbers are
important. A wall of protecting antibodies may ward off a small attack
– for instance when someone coughs at a distance. The attack
intensifies as the person comes closer. The scales begin to tip. Some
viruses may now overcome the barrier and make it into the cells. If the
cough comes from close quarters, the battle becomes one-sided and
ends in a quick victory for the virus.
So even if vaccination is “successful”, meaning that production of protective
antibodies has taken place, it does not guarantee immunity. To worsen
matters, antibody production spontaneously wanes after just a few months.
Protection, if any at all, is at best short-lived.
The idea of a personal “Immune Status” document is scientifically unsound.
What happens after the virus enters the cell? Experiments conducted on mice
have examined this in detail for SARS-CoV, the original SARS virus and
close relative of the present SARS-CoV-2. It was demonstrated that the
second arm of the immune system comes into play. Lymphocytes arrive on
70
the scene. A coordinated series of events takes place during which helper
cells explode into action and activate their partners, the killer
lymphocytes(209). These seek out the cells that contain the virus and kill them.
The factory is destroyed – the fire is extinguished.
Cough and fever go away.
How can killer lymphocytes know which cells to attack? Put in simple
words: imagine an infected cell to be a factory that produces and assembles
the virus parts. Bits and pieces that are not assembled into the viruses become
waste products that the cell removes in an ingenious way: it transports them
out and puts them in front of the door. The patrolling killer cells see the trash
and move in for the kill (step 2).
This second arm of our immune system is seldom talked about, but it is
probably actually all-important – much more so than the antibodies that
represent a rather shaky first line of defence. Most importantly, waste
products derived from different coronaviruses share similarities. Killer
lymphocytes recognising the waste of one virus can therefore be expected to
recognise at least some of the waste of others.
Would this imply cross-immunity?
Yes. Coronavirus mutations take place in very small steps. Protective
antibodies and lymphocytes against type A will therefore also be quite
effective against progeny Aa. If B comes to visit, you get another cold and
cough, but then your immune status broadens to cover A, Aa, B and Bb.
The scope of immunity expands with each new infection. And
lymphocytes can remember.
Who does not recall their child’s first year in kindergarten? Oh no, not
again, here comes the umpteenth cold with runny nose, cough and fever. The
child is ill all through the long winter! Luckily, it gets better the second year
and the third will be weathered with maybe just one or two colds. By the time
school starts, the operational base for combating the viruses has grown rock
solid.
So what does “Immunity against coronavirus” really mean?
Does “immune” mean that we do not get infected at all?
71
No. It means we don’t fall seriously ill.
And not getting sick does not rest solely on prevention of infection by
antibodies, but more on “putting out the fire”. When a new variant appears,
many people may get infected but because the fires are quickly extinguished,
they will not fall seriously ill. The relative few who fare worse do so because
the balance between attack and defence is heavily in favour of the virus. But
in the absence of pre-existing illness, the scales tip back again. The virus will
be overcome. As a rule, it is only for people with pre-existing conditions that
the virus may become the last straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back.
This is why coronavirus infections run a mild or even symptom-free
course and why an epidemic with any “new” virus is never followed by a
second, more serious, wave.
Why do annual coronavirus epidemics end in summer? Well, just one
speculation. Over 50% of the northern European population becomes vitamin
D-deficient in the dark winter months. Possibly, replenishment of vitamin D
stores by sunshine and the shift of activities to outdoors are simple important
reasons.
What happens to the virus after an epidemic? It joins its relatives and
circulates with them in the population. Infections continue to occur but most
go unnoticed because of the vitalised immune system. Once in a while,
someone will get his summer flu. But such is life.
Can a similar pattern be expected with SARS-CoV-2?
The authors believe that is exactly what we have witnessed. 85–90% of the
SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals did not fall ill. Most probably, their
lymphocytes extinguished the fires in time to limit viral production. Put very
simply: the virus was a new variant and able to infect almost anyone. But
immunity was already widespread due to the presence of lymphocytes that
cross-recognised the virus.
Does proof exist that lymphocytes from unexposed individuals crossrecognise
SARS-CoV-2?
Yes. In a recent German study, lymphocytes from 185 blood samples
obtained between 2007 and 2019 were examined for cross-recognition of
72
SARS-CoV-2. Positive results were found in no less than 70–80%, and this
applied to both helper and killer lymphocytes(210). A US study with
lymphocytes from 20 unexposed donors similarly reported the presence of
lymphocytes that were cross-reactive with the new virus(211). In these and
another Swedish study it was also found that even non-symptomatic or mild
SARS-CoV-2 infections provoked strong T-cell responses(212). We suspect
that these unusually vigorous T-cell responses to a first infection represent
classical booster phenomena occurring in pre-existing populations of reactive
T-lymphocytes.
Could the idea that lymphocytes mediate cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2 be
tested?
The concept of lymphocyte-mediated herd immunity that we present follows
from the integration of latest scientific data(209–212) into the established
context of host immunity to viral infections. The idea can actually be put to
test. Thus, in a recent study, cynomolgus monkeys were successfully infected
with SARS-CoV-2(213). Although all animals shed the virus, not a single one
fell ill. Minor lesions were found in the lungs of two animals, attesting to the
fact that vigorous production of the virus had taken place.
In essence, these findings replicated what has been witnessed in healthy
humans. Repetition of the monkey experiment in animals depleted of
lymphocytes would show whether herd immunity had indeed derived from
the presence of the cells.
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question
The development of vaccines against dreaded diseases such as smallpox,
diphtheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis represented turning points in the history
of medicine. Vaccination against a number of further diseases followed
which today belong to the standard repertoire of preventive medicine. Now,
the most pressing issue arises whether a global vaccination programme is
needed to end the coronavirus crisis. This question is so important that a
debate urgently needs to be conducted to reach a global consensus on three
basic points.
73
1. When is the development of a vaccine called for? We venture to
answer: when an infection regularly leads to severe illness and/or
serious sequelae in healthy individuals, as is not the case with SARSCoV-
2.
2. When would mass vaccination not be reasonable? We propose that
mass vaccination is not reasonable if a large part of the population is
already sufficiently protected against life-threatening disease, as is the
case for SARS-CoV-2.
3. When will vaccination likely be unsuccessful? We predict that
vaccination will fail when a virus co-existing worldwide with man and
animals continuously undergoes mutational change, and when
individuals become exposed to high doses of virus during spread of
the infection.
In the authors’ view, a global vaccination programme thus makes no sense.
The risks far outweigh any possible benefit right from the start.
Experts around the world express their concerns and warn of rushed
COVID-19 vaccines without sufficient safety guarantees(214,215).
Yet, researchers are currently working on more than 150 COVID-19
vaccine candidates(216), with some already in advanced clinical trials. The
aim of most vaccines is to achieve high levels of neutralising antibodies
against the binding spike proteins of the virus and cellular responses(217,218).
Four major strategies are being followed.
1. Inactivated or attenuated whole virus vaccines. Inactivated
vaccines require production of large quantities of the virus, which
need to be grown in chicken eggs or in immortalised cell lines. There
is always the risk that a virus batch will contain dangerous
contaminants and produce severe side effects. Moreover, the
possibility exists that vaccination may actually worsen the course of
subsequent infection(219), as has been observed in the past with
inactivated measles and respiratory syncytial virus vaccine(220,221).
Attenuated vaccines contain replicating viruses that have lost their
ability to cause disease. The classic example was the oral polio
vaccine that was in use for decades before tragic outbreaks of polio
occurred in Africa that were found to be caused not by wild virus, but
74
by the oral vaccine(222).
2. Protein vaccines. These will contain the virus spike protein or
fragments thereof. Supplementation with immune stimulators,
adjuvants that may cause serious side-effects, is always necessary(217).
3. Viral vectors as gene-based vaccines. The principle here is to
integrate the relevant coronavirus gene into the gene of a carrier virus
(e.g. adenovirus) that infects our cells(217). Replication-defective
vectors are unable to amplify their genome and will deliver just one
copy of the vaccine gene into the cell. To bolster effectiveness,
attempts have been made to create replication-competent vaccines.
This was undertaken with the Ebola vaccine rVSV-ZEBOV. However,
viral multiplication caused severe side effects in at least 20% of the
vaccinated, including rash, vasculitis, dermatitis and arthralgia.
4. Gene-based vaccines. In these cases, the viral gene is delivered to the
cell either as DNA inserted into a plasmid or as mRNA that is directly
translated into protein following cell uptake.
A great potential danger of DNA-based vaccines is the integration of
plasmid DNA into the cell genome(223). Insertional mutagenesis
occurs rarely but can become a realistic danger when the number of
events is very large, i.e. as in mass vaccination of a population. If
insertion occurs in cells of the reproductive system, the altered genetic
information will be transmitted from mother to child. Other dangers of
DNA vaccines are production of anti-DNA antibodies and
autoimmune reactions(224).
Safety concerns linked to mRNA vaccines include systemic
inflammation and potential toxic effects(225).
A further immense danger looms that applies equally to mRNA-based
coronavirus vaccines. At some time during or after production of the
viral spike, waste products of the protein must be expected to become
exposed on the surface of targeted cells. The majority of healthy
individuals have killer lymphocytes that recognise these viral
products(210,211). It is inevitable that autoimmune attacks will be
mounted against the cells. Where, when, and with which effects this
might occur is entirely unknown. But the prospects are simply
terrifying.
75
Yet, hundreds of volunteers who were never informed of these unavoidable
risks have already received injections of DNA and mRNA vaccines encoding
the spike protein of the virus, and many more are soon to follow. No genebased
vaccine has even received approval for human use, and the present
coronavirus vaccines have not undergone preclinical testing as normally
required by international regulations. Germany, a country whose populace
widely rejects genetic manipulation of food and opposes animal experiments,
now stands at the forefront of these genetic experiments on humans. Laws
and safety regulations have been bypassed in a manner that would, under
normal circumstances, never be possible. Is this perhaps why the government
still declares an “epidemic situation of national concern” to exist – in the
absence of serious new infections? For then the new German Infection
Protection Act empowers the government to make exceptions to the
provisions of the Medicinal Products Act, the medical device regulations, and
regulations on occupational safety and health. And this has given the green
light to the fast-track vaccine development project.
But the authors wonder whether the Infection Protection Act can go so far
as to permit genetic experiments to be conducted on humans who have not
been informed of the potential dangers.
Pandemic or no pandemic – the role of the WHO
Actually, have we not had a lighter version of pandemic-driven vaccination
hype before?
Exactly the same thing happened with the “swine flu” in 2009. Everyone
was told that a vaccine was desperately needed to stop the deadly pandemic.
Vaccines were then produced at miraculous speed – and sold en masse to
states around the world.
Prior to 2009, a pandemic required three criteria to be met(226):
The pathogen must be new
The pathogen must spread and cross continents rapidly
The pathogen must generally cause serious and often fatal disease
The swine flu turned out to meet the first two criteria, but not the third.
Because the call to declare a pandemic was very pressing, especially from the
76
pharmaceutical industry, major financers of the WHO(227), the WHO cut the
Gordian knot with a stroke of genius. A pandemic, it declared, can take a
mild or serious course!
In 2010, the definition of a pandemic was simplified yet further as “the
worldwide spread of a new disease”. Flu and coronaviruses continuously
undergo mutation and it is to be expected that variants will occasionally
emerge that cause somewhat atypical disease that could then be dubbed as
“new”. The swine flu provided the stage for a first exercise in the
employment of panic-making strategy to handle a pandemic. A typical
headline: “Swine flu: the calm before the storm?”(228) appeared in December
of 2009 when it was clear that virtually no one was ill and the course of the
infection had been milder than previous waves of influenza. Still, virologists
warned of underestimating the “dangerous” virus: “If we look at this virus in
an animal experiment and compare it with preceding viruses, one sees that
the virus is not harmless at all! It is much more dangerous than the annual
H3N2-virus.”
Brilliant. But what does this have to do with human medicine? Which
prominent scientist spread this frightening conclusion with such conviction?
Ah yes, a certain Professor Drosten.
The article continues: When, in the coming Christmas days, the Germans
vigorously intermix their viruses, a second wave seems inevitable. This could
be considerably more severe than the first.
A second wave was predicted, with the medical health system being
hopelessly overwhelmed, says, not Professor Drosten for once, but Professor
Peters from the University of Münster. He feared that the number of beds in
intensive care units would be insufficient. Moreover, many patients would
need artificial respiration. Dramatic situations could be created in the
overwhelmed hospitals.
Are you also having déjà-vu right now?
A nationwide vaccination with the hastily produced and barely tested
H1N1 vaccine was recommended. 60 million doses of adjuvanted vaccine
were purchased for the German population. Non-adjuvanted vaccine was
obtained only for high members of the government(229).
Again, this all happened when it was clear that the swine flu pandemic
had run a light course. The majority of the public decided wisely against the
77
senseless vaccination. What was the end of the story? Trucks loaded with
over 50 million expired vaccine doses were disposed of at the Magdeburg
waste-to-energy plant. As was taxpayer’s money … no, actually not, the
money just changed hands. Estimated profit for the pharmaceutical industry:
18 billion US dollars(230).
Actually, that was not quite the end of the fiasco. Almost forgotten today
is that one adjuvanted swine flu vaccine caused side effects that ruined
thousands of lives(231,232). The side effects were caused because antibodies
against the virus cross-reacted with a target in the brains of the victims. The
damage was the result of a classic antibody-driven autoimmune disease. The
side-effect was relatively rare. The incidence was probably something in the
order of 1 in 10,000, but the outcome was tragic because so many millions
received the vaccine, essentially for nothing, since the infection generally ran
a mild course. In retrospect, the risk-benefit ratio of swine flu vaccination
must be admitted to have been disastrous. This is what happens when mass
vaccination is undertaken without need.
78
8
Failure of the public media
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been
fooled. (MARK TWAIN)
In a working democracy, the media should provide the public with truthful
news, foster opinion formation through critique and discussion, and oversee
the action of the government as the “fourth public authority” with impartiality
and autonomy. What we have experienced during the coronavirus pandemic
is just the opposite(233).
All public broadcasters became servile mouthpieces of the government.
The press was no better. Regard for the truth, protection of human dignity,
service to the public – the Press Codex disappeared from the scene.
Worldwide.
Where was truthful information to be found?
And where were critical discussions of any information?
We were presented with disturbing pictures and frightening numbers –
morning, noon and night. Someone was always issuing a warning somewhere
– Drosten, Wieler, Spahn, Merkel. No one in the media ever critically
questioned these warnings or investigated their truth.
Scaring the population seemed to be the sole agenda(234). Reports on
millions of fatal casualties were presented without mention that they were
based on model calculations. No mention was made that Ferguson, the
producer of these numbers, had always been completely wrong in his
numerous doom-forecasting predictions.
79
At the same time, the media abstained from questioning how the RKI
numbers were compiled, what they meant and what could, or rather could
not, be gathered from them. Instead, the figures were uncritically accepted
and used to unsettle the public.
Where was the open discussion?
It could hardly have been more monotonous. Always the same “experts” – of
which there were apparently only two in Germany. Why was there never a
discussion between the government advisers and the critics like Dr Wolfgang
Wodarg, a lung specialist and board member of the anti-corruption
organisation “Transparency International” Germany? An open and objective
exchange: Drosten and Wieler and Bhakdi and Wodarg together at a roundtable
talk. Well, it did not hinge on Bhakdi or Wodarg or many other critics
of the government course. It was simply not wanted by the government.
There was much talk about how the Swedish way without lockdown was
being criticised by Swedish experts. That the German way was also
massively criticised by many knowledgeable citizens in their own country
was never a subject of discussion.
Besides Wodarg, the immunologist and toxicologist Professor Stefan
Hockertz pointed out early on that the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 should be
assessed similar to that of the common flu viruses, and that the implemented
measures were completely exaggerated. Also involved was Christof
Kuhbandner, a professor of psychology, who reiterated several times that
there was no scientific basis for these measures(235). How could he know,
people asked? The interesting thing is that any observant person with a
fundamental understanding of number theory can take the time to analyse the
statistics and come to the same conclusion. There are topics that span across
multiple disciplines. Dr Bodo Schiffmann, an ear-nose-and throat specialist
from Sinsheim, did the job that the journalists should have done. Almost
daily he posted videos on his YouTube channel with indefatigable energy and
persistence to inform the public on the latest developments and to explain the
numbers and why they were wrong.
The critical voices in this country were not alone, there were many others
worldwide(236,237). Was the public notified? It seemed to have been an easy
80
and successful strategy to simply not report these things; but such a stratagem
should have no place in an enlightened democratic state.
This synchronised “system journalism” was obviously apparent to
experts. Professor Otfried Jarren voiced his criticism in the
Deutschlandfunk(238). “For weeks now, the same male and female experts
and politicians make their appearance and are presented as the “crisis
managers”. But nobody asks who has which expertise and who appears in
which role. Furthermore, there are no debates among these experts, but only
individual statements.”
The numbers game
You can do a lot with numbers. Above all, you can make people afraid.
Example 1: infection rate. The infection rate was continuously increasing,
soon our health care system would collapse – what they didn’t say was that
the number of recovered people was also continuously increasing and that
there were no grounds for such an assumption. That remained a secret.
Example 2: mortality rate. “The US had the highest number of deaths
worldwide.” On May 28, the nightly news reports showed images of the
deceased: “They all died from COVID-19. With more than 100,000 deaths,
the US is mourning the highest number of victims worldwide.” Now we know
that a big fraction of these poor people did not die from COVID-19, but
rather from the measures taken against COVID-19.
Also, the US is the third largest country in the world. So perhaps it would
make more sense to look at the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants?
This number was relatively low – very much below the numbers from Spain
or Italy. Was that not worth mentioning? Furthermore, a good journalist
could also point out that the “number of deaths” is not an absolute value, not
the least because the counting methods are different for every country.
The country with the highest mortality rate per 100,000 citizens was
Belgium. The numbers were much higher than in Spain or Italy. Was the
situation there really so dramatic? No. As already shown, the basic problem
related to the method of counting(45). If such facts are not reported by the
media, then of course the numbers cannot be correctly assessed.
81
Defamation and discrediting
When critical voices were heard, immediate action was taken to silence them
by defamation. The lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg was the first to raise
his voice. The defamation campaign that followed was unparalleled.
As soon as we had published our first YouTube videos warning about the
excessive measures and pointed out that Italy might have other aggravating
factors, e.g. the high levels of air pollution), there was the first “facts-check”.
Under the headline “Why Sucharit Bhakdi’s numbers are wrong”, an article
was quickly put into the “ZDF Mediathek”. Nils Metzger supposedly gets to
the bottom if this(239): “Biology professor downplays coronavirus danger”. A
good starting point since the title immediately suggested that we were not
dealing with a medical doctor who had seen countless patients and was a
specialist in infection epidemiology, but with a biologist. And at some point
the classic situation whereby things are put into your mouth that you have
never said – just to discredit you. Metzger: “To present the factor air
pollution as the sole trigger for the crisis – as Sucharit Bhakdi did in his
video – is unscientific.” Naturally it was never once claimed anywhere that
the high number of victims was solely due to air pollution, because that
would indeed have been unscientific. This statement was a blatant lie. But
ARD/ZDF believers would hardly have made the effort to check the “real”
facts. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people who think that things must
be true when they are reported by the public broadcasters. Sadly, that is not
the case.
Censorship of opinions
Article 5 of the German constitution:
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his
opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without
hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and
freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.
There shall be no censorship.
82
There is no place for critical opinions in either the public press or the public
broadcasts. The only alternative was by means of the social media, where the
public could be informed via YouTube videos. But even here, freedom of
expression is merely lip service. You can find quite a few videos that get
away unpunished even though they promote lies, hate and agitation.
YouTube apparently has no problem with those. However, an interview with
the Austrian TV station Servus TV about coronavirus was deleted. This
happened to a lot of videos that were critically involved in this topic. Susan
Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, said during an interview(240): “Everything that
violates the recommendations of the WHO would constitute a breach against
our guidelines. Therefore, deletion is another important part of our
guidelines.” The WHO that was responsible for the fake swine flu pandemic
in 2009; The WHO that overestimated the COVID-19 mortality on a large
scale, and drove the world into a crisis with this and other misjudgements?
This same WHO that now sets the standard on what can be said?
WhatsApp reacted as well. The forward function was restricted in order to
contain the distribution of Fake News during the coronavirus crisis. But who
exactly determines if news is fake? What if our own government distributes
Fake News? On March 14, the Ministry of Health warned via Twitter:
Attention FAKE NEWS! It is claimed and rapidly distributed that the Federal Ministry
of Health/Federal government will soon announce further massive restrictions to
public life. This is NOT true!
Two days later, on March 16, further massive restrictions to public life were
announced.
The English Professor John Oxford, one of the best-known virologists
worldwide, said the following about the coronavirus crisis(241): “Personally, I
would say the best advice is to spend less time watching TV news which is
sensational and not very good. Personally, I view this COVID outbreak as
akin to a bad winter influenza epidemic. We are suffering from a media
epidemic!”
The German “good citizen” and the failure of politics
It is easier to believe a lie that you have heard a thousand times than to
83
believe a truth that you have only heard once (ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
We had a division within the country once before – during the refugee issue.
The opinions varied widely and there was talk about “good citizens”, the dogooders
and “angry citizens”, the not so do-gooders.
This time it is a lot worse. Friendships break apart. People face each other
with irreconcilable differences. They talk about each other, against each other
– but not with each other. Some are driven by worries about collateral
damages; others see themselves as advocates for the rights of the elderly who
are to be sacrificed for the economy.
Here is a commentary from a local paper after Chancellor Angela Merkel
addressed the nation with the decision to extend the lockdown:
“I was very relieved. Relieved, that we apparently did everything right
with our social distancing, our sacrifice by not meeting friends or visiting
family and all of that. I was very relieved that we will continue this in the
future”. Sadly, this is not an individual opinion. The media epidemic claimed
a lot of victims.
Eminent psychologist, Professor Gerd Gigerenzer, addressed this
issue(234):
“It is easy to trigger a fear of shock risks in people. These are situations
where a lot of people die suddenly in a very short time. This new coronavirus
could be such a shock risk, just the same as plane crashes, acts of terror or
other pandemics. If, however, deaths are spread out over a year, it hardly
scares us even if the number is significantly higher.”
Indeed. Without any measures having had any effect at all and at the end
of the epidemic, we are looking at far fewer than 10,000 so called
“coronavirus deaths” in Germany (Worldometers, July 2020).
In Germany, approximately 950,000 people die each year. Of those, more
than a third (350,000) die of cardiovascular diseases and 230,000 of
cancer(242).
Many of these 950,000 deaths could be prevented by information and
education, starting in schools and continuing for the general public, about the
importance of exercise and healthy diets, about the dangers of obesity and
many other issues. We could prevent thousands of deaths each year. And we
might also have fewer deaths from respiratory diseases, whereby a small
84
virus would not break the camel’s back, because that back would not be
strained to the breaking point. This applies not only to the coronaviruses but
to many other viruses and bacteria that have always done that and will
continue to do so in the future.
Why did our politicians fail?
After he had understood everything, a colleague exclaimed: “But how can
that be? It either means that our government and their advisers are
completely ignorant or incompetent – or, if they are not, there MUST be some
kind of intention behind it. How else can you possibly explain all this?”
Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from
1974 to 1982, was one of the last German politicians with class. He once
said: “The stupidity of governments should never be underestimated.” He
was right, of course, but THIS stupid? Really? One cannot and does not want
to believe that. Therefore, that only leaves the second question – what is the
intention behind all of this? And now politicians are wondering why
“conspiracy theorists” are springing up like mushrooms. Why did our
government ignore other opinions and make decisions haphazardly and
without a solid basis? Why did our government not act in the general interest
and for the good of the German people?
According to Johann Giesecke, politicians wanted to use the pandemic to
advance their own positions and were perfectly willing to implement
measures that were not scientifically substantiated(196). “Politicians want to
demonstrate their capacity to act, the capacity for decision making and most
of all their strength. My best example for this is that in Asian countries the
sidewalks are sprayed with chlorine. This is completely useless but it shows
that the state and the authorities are doing something, and that is very
important to politicians.” There are some indications from Austria that he
could be right in this:
During their crisis management, the Austrian government did not trust in
the expertise of their own advisers. An interview transcript later revealed that
Chancellor Sebastian Kurz was counting on fears rather than explanations
when implementing the rigid measures, which made it easier to get the public
to accept social and economic impositions(243).
85
The strategy document of the German Ministry of the Interior reveals that
the same agenda had been premeditated in this country(154).
Why was there so little criticism of the government’s course from the
economy?
The stock market professional, Dirk Müller, gave a persuasive explanation
why the pandemic was a blessing for many(244): in short, because it is always
the same story: Big companies win, small ones lose. Big corporations will
survive while many small and midsize companies as well as private
businesses will perish. Finance professor, Stefan Homburg, called it “the
largest redistribution of wealth in peacetime”. The loser would be the
taxpayer(245).
Why was there so little criticism from the scientists’ ranks?
Let’s not be naïve. Science is just as corrupt as politics. The European Union
provided 10 million euro for research on the novel coronavirus. Every Tom,
Dick and Harry who wanted to research this virus could apply for financing.
So very soon now we will have a lot of, possibly useless, information about
SARS-CoV-2 and under these circumstances it is not exactly helpful to point
out the relative harmlessness of the virus.
Conclusions:
the government is committed to serving the good of the citizens
the opposition is committed to oversee government action
the press is committed to inform the public by critical and truthful
reporting
those in the know (in this case physicians and scientists) are obligated to
raise their voice and demand evidence-based decisions
Every citizen who did not attend to his duties is an accomplice to the
collateral damage of the coronavirus crisis.
86
9
Quo vadis?
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all
the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time (ABRAHAM
LINCOLN)
The relevant authorities, our politicians and their advisers played truly
inglorious roles in the handling of new and supposedly dangerous infections
of the last decades, from BSE, swine flu, EHEC to COVID-19. At no point
did they learn from their mistakes, and this diminishes the hope that it will be
any different in the future. On the contrary! While we “only” redistributed
taxpayers’ money to the pharmaceutical industry during the swine flu, this
time livelihoods were destroyed, the constitution was trampled on and the
population basically deprived of their fundamental rights: freedom of speech
and opinion, freedom of movement, freedom of relocation, freedom of
assembly, freedom of actively practicing your religion, freedom to practice
your occupation and make a living.
Anchored in the constitution is the principle of proportionality: the State’s
interference with basic rights must be appropriate to reach the aspired goal.
And last but not least: the dignity of mankind must never be violated.
This ceased to be the case, to the detriment of democracy and civilisation.
It has been almost 90 years since the time in Germany when critical and
free journalism was abolished and the media transformed into the extended
arm of the state.
It has been almost 90 years since the time when freedom was abolished
and opinions of the public were forced into the political line.
It has been almost 90 years since the last media-driven mass hysteria.
87
If we have learned just one thing from the darkest times of our German
history, then surely this: We must never again be indifferent and look the
other way. Especially not when the government suspends our fundamental
democratic rights. This time, it was only a virus that knocked on our door, but
look what we had to go through as a consequence:
Media-fuelled mass hysteria
Arbitrary political decisions
Massive restrictions of fundamental rights
Censorship of freedom of expression
Enforced conformity of the media
Defamation of dissidents (the differently minded)
Denunciation
Dangerous human experiments
If that does not remind you of a dictatorship then you must have been sound
asleep during your history lessons. The things that remain with us are deep
concern and fear. Because so many intelligent and educated people became
like lemmings within a short three months, willing to obey the demands and
commands of the world elite.
The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt said(246): “We are all locked up.
In Nice there are drones that impose fines on people. How far has this
monitoring gotten? You have to read Hannah Arendt and look very closely at
the origins of totalitarianism at that time. If you scare the population, you
can do anything with it.”
Apparently, he is right. One thing is clear: there are many things that
should be worked through and we should all insist upon this happening. The
coronaviruses have retreated for this season, the issue is disappearing from
the headlines and from the public sphere – and soon it will be gone from
peoples’ memories.
If we, the people, do not demand that all transgressions of the coronavirus
politics are addressed, then those in power will be able to cover it all with a
cloak of concealment.
There is always the chance of some other threat knocking on our door.
The only positive thing that has come from this is that very many people in
our country have woken up. Many have realised that the mainstream media
88
and politicians can agree to support each other on things that are not good –
and even evil. One can only hope that the admonishing voices of reason will
in future not be silenced by the dark forces on this earth.
89
10
A farewell
Respiratory viruses are a major cause of mortality worldwide, with an
estimated 2–3 million deaths annually. Many viruses including influenza A
viruses, rhinoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza
viruses, adenoviruses and coronaviruses are responsible. Now, a new member
has joined the list. As with the others, the SARS-CoV-2 virus particularly
endangers the elderly with serious pre-existing conditions. Depending on the
country and region, 0.02 to 0.4% of these infections are fatal, which is
comparable to a seasonal flu. SARS-CoV-2 therefore must not be assigned
any special significance as a respiratory pathogen.
The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak was never an epidemic of national concern.
Implementing the exceptional regulations of the Infection Protection Act
were and still are unfounded. In mid-April 2020, it was entirely evident that
the epidemic was coming to an end and that the inappropriate preventive
measures were causing irreparable collateral damage in all walks of life. Yet,
the government continues its destructive crusade against the spook virus,
thereby utterly disregarding the fundaments of true democracy.
And as you read these lines, human experiments are underway with genebased
vaccines whose ominous dangers have never been revealed to the
thousands of unknowing volunteers.
We are bearing witness to the downfall and destruction of our heritage, to
the end of the age of enlightenment.
May this little book awaken homo sapiens of this earth to rise and live up
to their name. And put an end to this senseless self-destruction.
90
References
(1) “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Weekly Epidemiological Update and Weekly Operational
Update,” World Health Organization, last accessed August 26, 2020, https://www.who.int
/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.
(2) Chih-Cheng Lai et al., “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and
Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19): The Epidemic and the Challenges,” International
Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 55, no. 3 (March 2020): 105924, https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijantimicag.2020.105924.
(3) Catrin Sohrabi et al., “World Health Organization Declares Global Emergency: A Review of the
2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),” International Journal of Surgery 76 (April 2020): 71–
76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034.
(4) Shuo Su et al., “Epidemiology, Genetic Recombination, and Pathogenesis of Coronaviruses,”
Trends in Microbiology 24, no. 6 (June 2016): 490–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.03
.003.
(5) Jie Cui, Fang Li, and Zheng-Li Shi, “Origin and Evolution of Pathogenic Coronaviruses,”
Nature Reviews Microbiology 17 (2019): 181–92, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-018-0118-9.
(6) Yanis Roussel et al., “SARS-CoV-2: Fear Versus Data,” International Journal of Antimicrobial
Agents 55, no. 5 (May 2020): 105947, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105947.
(7) David M. Patrick et al., “An Outbreak of Human Coronavirus OC43 Infection and Serological
Cross-Reactivity with SARS Coronavirus,” Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and
Medical Microbiology 17, no. 6 (November–December 2006): 330–36, https://www.ncbi.nlm
.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096.
(8) Kelvin K. W. To et al., “From SARS to Coronavirus to Novel Animal and Human
Coronaviruses,” Journal of Thoracic Disease 5, no. S2 (August 2013): S103–8, http://doi.org/10
.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.06.02.
(9) “SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome),” National Health Service (UK), last reviewed
October 24, 2019, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars.
(10) “Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV),” World Health Organization,
(11) “COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic,” Worldometer, https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus.
(12) Benjamin Reuter, “Coronavirus lässt in Italien Ärzte verzweifeln—Entscheidungen wie in
Kriegszeiten,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), March 12, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen
/drohen-in-deutschlanditalienische-verhaeltnisse-coronavirus-laesst-in-italienaerzteverzweifelnentscheidungen-
wie-in-kriegszeiten/25632790.html.
(13) Ciro Indolfi and Carmen Spaccarotella, “The Outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy: Fighting the
Pandemic,” JACC: Case Reports 2, no. 9 (July 2020): 1414–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas
.2020.03.012.
(14) Max Roser et al., “Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19),” Our World in Data, last updated
91
August 26, 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid.
(15) “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report—61,” World Health Organization,
March 20, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports
/20200321-sitrep-61-covid-19.pdf.
(16) Michael Day, “COVID-19: Four Fifths of Cases Are Asymptomatic, China Figures Indicate,”
BMJ 369, (April 2020): m1375, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1375.
(17) “Regeln zur Durchführung der ärztlichen Leichenschau,” AWMF Online (Germany), revised
January to October 2017, https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/054-002l_S1_Regelnzur-
Durchfuehrung-der-aerztlichen-Leichenschau_2018-02_01.pdf.
(18) Audrey Giraud-Gatineau et al., “Comparison of Mortality Associated with Respiratory Viral
Infections between December 2019 and March 2020 with That of the Previous Year in
Southeastern France,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 96 (July 2020): 154–56,
(19) Victor M. Corman et al., “Detection of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by Real-Time RTPCR,”
Eurosurveillance 25, no. 3 (January 2020): 2000045, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917
.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.
(20) Sonja Gurris, “Corona-Tests werden Geheimwaffe,” n-tv (Cologne), March 30, 2020, https://
http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Corona-Tests-werden-Geheimwaffe-article21678629.html.
(21) Christian Drosten, Twitter post, April 13, 2020, 4:42 p.m., https://twitter.com/c_drosten/status
/1249800091164192771.
(22) Australian Associated Press, “WHO Rejects Tanzania Claim Tests Faulty,” Examiner
(Launceston), May 8, 2020, https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6749732/who-rejects-tanzaniaclaim-
tests-faulty.
(23) Yafang Li et al., “Stability Issues of RT-PCR Testing of SARS-CoV-2 for Hospitalized Patients
Clinically Diagnosed with COVID-19,” Journal of Medical Virology 92, no. 7 (July 2020): 903–
8, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25786.
(24) Gurris, “Corona-Tests werden Geheimwaffe.”
(25) Ines Nastali, “Police Intervenes on Quarantined Mein Schiff 3,” Safety at Sea, May 6, 2020,
(26) “Wenig Infektionen beim Charité-Personal,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), May 13, 2020,
(27) John P. A. Ioannidis, “Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Harms of Exaggerated Information and
Non-Evidence-Based Measures,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50, no. 4 (April
2020): e13222, https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13222.
(28) Sucharit Bhakdi, open letter to Angela Merkel, March 26, 2020, PDF available to download until
March 31, 2021, https://c.gmx.net/@824224682608695698/cI1TagSeQmi0WlXK-m8vWA.
(29) Patrick Gensing and Markus Grill, “40 Prozent mehr Tests in Deutschland,” Tagesschau
(Hamburg), May 6, 2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/corona-tests-rki-101.html.
(30) Julia Bernewasser, “Das sind die ersten Lehren der Heinsberg-Studie,” Der Tagesspeigel
(Berlin), April 9, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/zwischenergebnis-zurcoronavirusuebertragung-
das-sind-die-ersten-lehrenderheinsberg-studie/25730138.html.
(31) Paula Schneider, “‘Unwissenschaftlich’: Statistikerin zerlegt Heinsberg-Studie, auf die sich
Laschet stützt,” Focus (Munich), April 15, 2020, https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/news/hoffedass-
wir-darausnur-wenig-ueber-corona-lernen-statistikerin-zerlegtheinsbergstudie-keinetransparenz-
kein-wissenschaftlicher-standard_id_11881853.html.
(32) Hendrik Streeck et al., “Infection Fatality Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a German
Community with a Super-Spreading Event,” preprint, medRxiv, June 2, 2020, https://doi.org/10
.1101/2020.05.04.20090076.
92
(33) “Field Briefing: Diamond Princess COVID-19 Cases,” National Institute of Infectious Diseases
(Japan), February 19, 2020, https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9407-covid-dpfe-01
.html.
(34) Kenji Mizumoto et al., “Estimating the Asymptomatic Proportion of Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) Cases on Board the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship, Yokohama, Japan, 2020,”
Eurosurveillance 25, no. 10 (March 2020): 20000180, https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES
.2020.25.10.2000180.
(35) Tara John, “Iceland Lab’s Testing Suggests 50% of Coronavirus Cases Have No Symptoms,”
CNN, April 3, 2020, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/01/europe/iceland-testing-coronavirus-intl
/index.html.
(36) Rongrong Yang, Xien Gui, and Yong Xiong, “Comparison of Clinical Characteristics of Patients
with Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,” JAMA
Network Open 3, no. 5 (May 2020): e2010182, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020
.10182.
(37) “Erster Todesfall in Schleswig-Holstein,” Der Spiegel, March 17, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de
/wissenschaft/coronavirus-erster-todesfall-in-schleswig-holstein-a-6db5f0b0-b662-45b0-bdb4-
603684d4dc92.
(38) Bettina Mittelacher, “Mediziner: Alle Corona-Toten in Hamburg waren vorerkrankt,” Berliner
Morgenpost, April 27, 2020, https://www.morgenpost.de/vermischtes/article228994571
/Rechtsmediziner-Alle-Corona-Toten-hattenVorerkrankungen.html.
(39) Dominic Wichmann et al., “Autopsy Findings and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with
COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine 173, no. 4 (August
2020): 268–77, https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2003.
(40) Nikita Jolkver, “Coronavirus: Was die Toten über COVID-19 verraten,” DW Akademie (Bonn),
April 30, 2020, https://p.dw.com/p/3baZF.
(41) SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Group, Characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Patients Dying in Italy, report
based on available data on July 9, 2020, https://www.epicentro.iss.it/en/coronavirus/bollettino
/Report-COVID-2019_9_july_2020.pdf.
(42) O. Haferkamp and H. Matthys, “Grippe und Lungenembolien,” Deutsche Medizinische
Wochenschrift 95, no. 51 (1970): 2560–63, https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1108874.
(43) Sarah Newey, “Why Have So Many Coronavirus Patients Died in Italy?,” Telegraph, March 23,
2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/have-many-coronaviruspatients-
died-italy.
(44) Gregory Beals, “Official Coronavirus Death Tolls Are Only an Estimate, and That Is a Problem,”
NBC News, April 15, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/official-coronavirus-deathtolls-
are-only-estimate-problem-n1183756.
(45) Karolina Meta Beisel, “Warum Belgien die höchste Todesrate weltweit hat,” Tages-Anzeiger
(Zurich), April 22, 2020, https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/warum-belgien-die-hoechstetodesrateweltweit-
hat-825753123788.
(46) John P. A. Ioannidis, Cathrine Axfors, and Despina G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, “Population-
Level COVID-19 Mortality Risk for Non-Elderly Individuals Overall and for Non-Elderly
Individuals without Underlying Diseases in Pandemic Epicenters,” Environmental Research 188
(September 2020): 109890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109890.
(47) “GrippeWeb,” Robert Koch-Instituts, https://grippeweb.rki.de.
(48) “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Situation Report—46,” World Health Organization,
March 6, 2020, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports
/20200306-sitrep-46-covid-19.pdf.
(49) “Häufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten zur Grippe,” Robert Koch-Instituts, updated January 30,
93
2019, https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Influenza/FAQ_Liste.html.
(50) “30 000 Tote—die kann’s auch bei saisonaler Grippe geben,” Ärzte-Zeitung (Neu-Isenburg),
September 3, 2009, https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Medizin/30000-Tote-die-kannsauch-beisaisonaler-
Grippe-geben-371174.html.
(51) “Grippewelle war tödlichste in 30 Jahren,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), September 30, 2019,
(52) “Gesundheitsministerin erklärt Grippewelle 2018 in Bayern für beendet,” Augsburger
Allgemeine, May 10, 2018, https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/wissenschaft
/Gesundheitsministerin-erklaert-Grippewelle-2018-in-Bayernfuerbeendet-id42750551.html.
(53) World Health Organization, “Up to 650 000 People Die of Respiratory Diseases Linked to
Seasonal Flu Each Year,” news release, December 13, 2017, https://www.who.int/mediacentre
/news/statements/2017/flu/en.
(54) Euronews, “Coronavirus in Deutschland: Sterberate steigt, RKI erwartet zweite welle,”
Euronews (Lyon), May 5, 2020, https://de.euronews.com/2020/05/05/coronavirus-indeutschland-
sterberate-steigt-rki-erwartet-zweite-welle.
(55) Silvia Stringhini et al., “Repeated Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies in a
Population-Based Sample from Geneva, Switzerland,” preprint, medRxiv, May 6, 2020, https://
doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.02.20088898.
(56) Asako Doi et al., “Estimation of Seroprevalence of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)
Using Preserved Serum at an Outpatient Setting in Kobe, Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study,”
preprint, medRxiv, May 5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822.
(57) Alberto L. Garcia-Basteiro et al., “Seroprevalence of Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 Among
Health Care Workers in a Large Spanish Reference Hospital,” preprint, medRxiv, May 2, 2020,
(58) “Coronavirus: los primeros datos de seroprevalencia estiman que un 5% de la población ha
estado contagiada, con variabilidad según provincias,” Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Gobierno de
España, May 13, 2020, https://www.isciii.es/Noticias/Noticias/Paginas/Noticias
/PrimerosDatosEstudioENECOVID19.aspx.
(59) Kieran Corcoran, “A Test of 200 People Just outside Boston Found That 32% Had Been
Exposed to the Coronavirus, Compared to an Official Rate of 2%,” Business Insider, April 19,
2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-test-200-chelsea-massachusetts-finds-32-
percent-exposed-2020-4.
(60) John Ioannidis, “The Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 Inferred from Seroprevalence Data,”
preprint, medRxiv, July 14, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253.
(61) Maryam Shakiba et al., “Seroprevalence of COVID-19 Virus Infection in Guilan Province, Iran,”
preprint, medRxiv, May 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244.
(62) Eran Bendavid et al., “COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California,”
preprint, medRxiv, posted April 30, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463.
(63) Christian Erikstrup et al., “Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Fatality Rate by Real-Time
Antibody Screening of Blood Donors,” Clinical Infectious Diseases ciaa849 (June 2020):
(64) Fadoua Balabdaoui and Dirk Mohr, “Age-Stratified Model of the COVID-19 Epidemic to
Analyze the Impact of Relaxing Lockdown Measures: Nowcasting and Forecasting for
Switzerland,” preprint, medRxiv, May 13, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.08.20095059.
(65) “Preliminary Results of USC-LA County COVID-19 Study Released,” University of Southern
California, April 20, 2020, https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-county-covid
-19-study-released.
(66) Lionel Roques et al., “Using Early Data to Estimate the Actual Infection Fatality Ratio from
94
COVID-19 in France,” Biology 9, no. 5 (May 2020): 97, https://doi.org/10.3390
/biology9050097.
(67) Carson C. Chow et al., “Global Prediction of Unreported SARS-CoV2 Infection from Observed
COVID-19 Cases,” preprint, medRxiv, May 5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.29
.20083485.
(68) Siuli Mukhopadhyay and Debraj Chakraborty, “Estimation of Undetected COVID-19 Infections
in India,” preprint, medRxiv, May 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.20.20072892.
(69) Robert Verity et al., “Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-Based
Analysis,” Lancet: Infectious Diseases 20, no. 6 (June 2020): 669–77, https://doi.org/10.1016
/S1473-3099(20)30243-7.
(70) Kenji Mizumoto, Katsushi Kagaya, and Gerardo Chowell, “Early Epidemiological Assessment
of the Transmission Potential and Virulence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in
Wuhan City, China, January–February, 2020,” BMC Medicine 18 (2020): article 217, https://doi
.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01691-x.
(71) Timothy W. Russell et al., “Estimating the Infection and Case Fatality Ratio for Coronavirus
Disease (COVID-19) Using Age-Adjusted Data from the Outbreak on the Diamond Princess
Cruise Ship, February 2020,” Eurosurveillance 25, no. 12 (March 2020): 2000256, https://doi
.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256.
(72) “Komplikationen,” Lungenärzte im Netz, https://www.lungenaerzte-im-netz.de/krankheiten
/grippe/komplikationen.
(73) “103-jährige Italienerin erholt sich von COVID-19,” Donaukurier (Ingolstadt), updated April 16,
2020, video, https://www.donaukurier.de/nachrichten/panorama/103-jaehrige-Italienerin-erholtsich-
von-COVID-19;art154670,4548023.
(74) Jason Oke and Carl Heneghan, “Global COVID-19 Case Fatality Rates,” Oxford COVID-19
Evidence Service, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, updated June 9, 2020, https://www
.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates.
(75) “113-jährige Spanierin überlebt Coronavirus-Infektion,” GMX, May 13, 2020, https://www.gmx
.net/magazine/panorama/113-jaehrigespanierin-ueberlebt-coronavirus-infektion-34698438.
(76) “SARS-CoV-2 Steckbrief zur Coronavirus-Krankheit-2019 (COVID-19),” Robert Koch-Institut,
updated August 21, 2020, https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus
/Steckbrief.html.
(77) “Amtliches Dashboard COVID19,” Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und
Konsumentenschutz, https://info.gesundheitsministerium.at/dashboard_GenTod.html.
(78) “COVID-19 Daily Deaths,” National Health Service (UK), https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics
/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths.
(79) Kathryn A. Myers and Donald R. E. Farquhar, “Improving the Accuracy of Death Certification,”
CMAJ 158, no. 10 (May 1998): 1317–23, https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/158/10/1317.full
.pdf.
(80) Sandy McDowell, “Understanding Cancer Death Rates,” American Cancer Society, January 25,
2019, https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/understanding-cancer-death-rates.html.
(81) Yoon K. Loke and Carl Heneghan, “Why No-One Can Ever Recover from COVID-19 in
England—A Statistical Anomaly,” Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, July 16, 2020, https://
(82) “Corona—Blog,” Krefeld, https://www.krefeld.de/de/inhalt/corona-aktuelle-meldungen/.
(83) Victor G. Puelles et al., “Multiorgan and Renal Tropism of SARS-CoV-2,” New England
Journal of Medicine 383 (August 2020): 590–92, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2011400.
(84) David Bainton, Glynne R. Jones, and David Hole, “Influenza and Ischaemic Heart Disease—A
95
Possible Trigger for Acute Myocardial Infarction?,” International Journal of Epidemiology 7,
no. 3 (September 1978): 231–39, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/7.3.231.
(85) Hiroshi Kido et al., “Role of Host Cellular Proteases in the Pathogenesis of Influenza and
Influenza-Induced Multiple Organ Failure,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) – Proteins
and Proteomics 1824, no. 1 (January 2012): 186–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2011.07
.001.
(86) Debby van Riel, Rob Verdijk, and Thijs Kuiken, “The Olfactory Nerve: A Shortcut for Influenza
and Other Viral Diseases into the Central Nervous System,” Journal of Pathology 235, no. 2
(January 2015): 277–87, https://doi.org/10.1002/path.4461.
(87) Camilla Rothe et al., “Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in
Germany,” New England Journal of Medicine 382 (March 2020): 970–71, https://doi.org/10
.1056/NEJMc2001468.
(88) Kai Kupferschmidt, “Study Claiming New Coronavirus Can Be Transmitted by People without
Symptoms Was Flawed,” Science, February 3, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02
/paper-non-symptomatic-patient-transmitting-coronavirus-wrong.
(89) Russell M. Viner et al., “School Closure and Management Practices During Coronavirus
Outbreaks Including COVID-19: A Rapid Systematic Review,” Lancet 4, no. 5 (May 2020):
397–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X.
(90) Pamela Dörhöfer, “Italien leidet unter dem Coronavirus: Sterberate ist erschreckend hoch,”
Frankfurter Rundschau, April 14, 2020, https://www.fr.de/panorama/coronavirus-SARS-CoV-2-
sterberate-italien-deutlich-hoeher-rest-welt-zr-13604897.html.
(91) Ernesto Diffidenti, “Coronavirus, i contagiati reali in Italia sono almeno 100mila,” Il Sole 24 Ore
(Milan), March 17, 2020, https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/coronavirus-contagiati-realiin-italiasono-
almeno-100mila-ADnzowD.
(92) Kat Lay, “Coronavirus: Record Weekly Death Toll as Fearful Patients Avoid Hospitals,” Times
(UK), April 15, 2020, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-record-weeklydeath-tollas-
fearful-patients-avoid-hospitals-bm73s2tw3.
(93) Paul Nuki, “Two New Waves of Deaths Are about to Break over the NHS, New Analysis
Warns,” Telegraph, April 25, 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-anddisease/
two-new-waves-deaths-break-nhs-new-analysis-warns.
(94) Ceylan Yeinsu, “N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait,” New York Times,
January 3, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service
.html.
(95) Denis Campbell, “Health Services Overloaded Despite Support Pledges, Claims Report,”
Guardian (US edition), May 20, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/21
/health-services-overloaded-despite-support-pledges-claims-report.
(96) Michael Savage, “NHS Winter Crisis Fears Grow after Thousands of EU Staff Quit,” Guardian
(US edition), November 24, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/24/nhswinter-
crisis-thousands-eu-staff-quit.
(97) Amanda MacMillan, “Hospitals Overwhelmed by Flu Patients Are Treating Them in Tents,”
Time, January 18, 2018, https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flupatients.
(98) Helen Branswell, “A Severe Flu Season Is Stretching Hospitals Thin. That Is a Very Bad
Omen,” STAT, January 15, 2018, https://www.statnews.com/2018/01/15/flu-hospital-pandemics.
(99) “Coronavirus Fact-Check #1: ‘COVID19 Is Having an Unprecedented Impact on ICUs,”
OffGuardian, April 2, 2020, https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/02/coronavirus-fact-check-1-fludoesnt-
overwhelm-our-hospitals.
(100) R. Salamanca, “La gripe colapsa los hospitales de media España,” El Mundo (Madrid), January
12, 2017, https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia/2017/01/12/58767cb4268e3e1f448b459a.html.
96
(101) Daniel Ventura, “¿Por qué la gripe significa colapso en los hospitales españoles?,” HuffPost
(Spain edition), January 13, 2017, https://www.huffingtonpost.es/2017/01/13/gripecolapsohospitales_
n_14135402.html.
(102) Simona Ravizza, “Milano, terapie intensive al collasso per l’influenza: già 48 malati gravi molte
operazioni rinviate,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), January 10, 2018, https://milano.corriere.it
/notizie/cronaca/18_gennaio_10/milano-terapie-intensive-collasso-l-influenza-gia-48-malatigravi-
molte-operazioni-rinviate-c9dc43a6-f5d1-11e7-9b06-fe054c3be5b2.shtml.
(103) Christian Baars, “Mehr Tote durch resistente Keime,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), November 18,
2019, https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/antibiotika-keime-resistent-101.html.
(104) “Europäische Union: Altersstruktur in den Mitgliedsstaaten im Jahr 2019,” Statista, March 2020,
(105) Savannah Blank, “Wieso sterben in Italien so viele an COVID-19 und wieso sind so viele
infiziert?,” Südwest Presse (Ulm), April 30, 2020, https://www.swp.de/panorama/coronavirusitalien-
aktuellwieso-sterben-in-italien-so-viele-an-corona-wieso-hat-italiensoviele-infiziertezahlen-
tote-gruende-45080326.html.
(106) Stefania Boccia, Walter Ricciardi, and John P. A. Ioannidis, “What Other Countries Can Learn
from Italy During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” JAMA Internal Medicine 180, no. 7 (July 2020):
927–28, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1447.
(107) Paul Kreiner, “Beim Smog ist Italien das China Europas,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), December
2, 2015, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/luftverschmutzung-beim-smog-istitalien-
daschinaeuropas/12668866.html.
(108) Marco Martuzzi et al., Health Impact of PM10 and Ozone in 13 Italian Cities (Copenhagen:
World Health Organization, 2006), http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/91110
/E88700.pdf.
(109) Daniel P. Croft et al., “The Association between Respiratory Infection and Air Pollution in the
Setting of Air Quality Policy and Economic Change,” Annals of the American Thoracic Society
16, no. 3 (March 2019): https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201810-691OC.
(110) Xiao Wu et al., “Exposure to Air Pollution and COVID-19 Mortality in the United States: A
Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study,” preprint, medRxiv, April 27, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101
/2020.04.05.20054502.
(111) Susanne Pfaller and Matthias Lauer, “Trauer in Corona-Zeiten: Mehr Anzeigen und
Feuerbestattungen,” Bayerischer Rundfunk, April 29, 2020, https://www.br.de/nachrichten
/bayern/trauer-in-corona-zeitenmehr-anzeigen-und-feuerbestattungen,RxZCWs0.
(112) Katja Thorwarth, “New Yorker Notarzt über Corona-Krise in der Bronx: „Manchmal 200
Erkrankungen in einem Stockwerk,“” Frankfurter Rundschau, May 14, 2020, https://www.fr.de
/politik/coronavirus-corona-krise-usanotarzt-lage-new-york-bronx-zr-13762623.html.
(113) Lucia De Franceschi et al., “Acute Hemolysis by Hydroxycloroquine Was Observed in G6PDDeficient
Patient with Severe COVID-19 Related Lung Injury,” European Journal of Internal
Medicine 77 (July 2020): 136–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2020.04.020.
(114) “Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency,” Genetics Home Reference, National
Institutes of Health, August 17, 2020, https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/glucose-6-phosphatedehydrogenase-
deficiency#statistics.
(115) “Charité-Chefvirologe warnt vor dramatischer Corona-Welle im Herbst,” BZ (Berlin), updated
April 1, 2020, https://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/charite-chefvirologe-warnt-vor-dramatischercorona-
welle-im-herbst.
(116) Dominik Straub, “Letalität in Deutschland 30-mal niedriger als in Italien – wie ist das
möglich?,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), March 11, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik
/coronavirus-in-europaletalitaet-in-deutschland-30-mal-niedriger-als-in-italien-wieistdas-
97
moeglich/25626678.html.
(117) BMG, Twitter post, March 14, 2020, 6:55 a.m., https://twitter.com/bmg_bund/status
/1238780849652465664.
(118) “Coronavirus Restrictions: What’s Closed (and What’s Open) in Germany?,” Local (German
edition), updated March 20, 2020, https://www.thelocal.de/20200316/coronavirus-restrictionswhats-
closed-and-whats-open-in-germany.
(119) John P. A. Ioannidis, “A Fiasco in the Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We
Are Making Decisions without Reliable Data,” STAT, March 17, 2020, https://www.statnews
.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-aremaking-
decisions-without-reliable-data.
(120) Christian Baars, “Radikale Maßnahmen für viele Monate?,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), March 17,
2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr/coronavirus-studie-london-101.html.
(121) Matt Ridley and David Davis, “Is the Chilling Truth That the Decision to Impose Lockdown
Was Based on Crude Mathematical Guesswork?,” Telegraph, May 10, 2020, https://www
.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/10/chilling-truth-decision-impose-lockdown-based-crudemathematical.
(122) “„Exponentielles Wachstum“: RKI mahnt eindringlich zum Abstandhalten,” Deutsches
Ärzteblatt (Berlin), March 20, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111209
/Exponentielles-Wachstum-RKI-mahnt-eindringlich-zum-Abstandhalten.
(123) Matthias an der Heiden and Udo Buchholz, Modellierung von Beispielszenarien der SARS-CoV-
2-Epidemie 2020 in Deutschland, Robert Koch Institut, March 20, 2020, https://doi.org/10
.25646/6571.2.
(124) “Deutsche Krankenhäuser nehmen COVID-19-Patienten aus Italien und Frankreich auf,”
Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), March 24, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111286
/Deutsche-Krankenhaeuser-nehmen-COVID-19-Patienten-aus-Italien-undFrankreich-auf.
(125) “„Verdopplungszeit“ zehn Tage—So weit ist Deutschland von Merkels Ziel entfernt,” Welt
(Berlin), March 3, 2020, https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article206895285/Coronavirus
-So-weit-ist-Deutschland-von-Merkels-Zielvorgabeentfernt.html.
(126) Ulrich Stoll and Christian Rohde, “Zwischen ‘schneller Kontrolle’ und ‘Anarchie,’” ZDF Heute
(Mainz), March 31, 2020, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/f21-corona-dokumentinnenministerium-
100.html.
(127) Thomas Steinmann, “Innenministerium warnt vor Wirtschaftscrash,” Capital (Hamburg), April
1, 2020, https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-politik/innenministerium-warnt-vor-wirtschaftscrash.
(128) Matthias an der Heiden and Osamah Hamouda, “Schätzung der aktuellen Entwicklung der
SARS-CoV-2-Epidemie in Deutschland—Nowcasting,” Epidemiologisches Bulletin 17, (April
2020): 10–16, https://doi.org/10.25646/6692.4.
(129) Christian Geinitz, “„In den Kliniken stehen Tausende Betten leer“,” Frankfurter Allgemeine,
updated April 15, 2020, https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/fehlplanung-der-politikin-denkliniken-
stehen-betten-leer-16725981.html.
(130) Using Face Masks in the Community (Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and
Control, 2020), https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-use-facemasks-
community.pdf.
(131) Samy Rengasamy, Benjamin Eimer, and Ronald E. Shaffer, “Simple Respiratory Protection—
Evaluation of the Filtration Performance of Cloth Masks and Common Fabric Materials Against
20–1000 nm Size Particles,” Annals of Occupational Hygiene 54, no. 7 (October 2010): 789–98,
(132) C. Raina MacIntyre et al., “A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical
Masks in Healthcare Workers,” BMJ Open 5, no. 4 (2015): e006577, https://doi.org/10.1136
98
/bmjopen-2014-006577.
(133) “Advice on the Use of Masks in the Context of COVID-19,” World Health Organization, June 5,
2020, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-communityduring-
home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-
ncov)-outbreak.
(134) Timo Mitze et al., Face Masks Considerably Reduce COVID-19 Cases in Germany: A Synthetic
Control Method Approach (Bonn, Germ.: Institute of Labor Economics, 2020), http://ftp.iza.org
/dp13319.pdf.
(135) Udo Buchholz, Silke Buda, and Kerstin Prahm, “Abrupter Rückgang der Raten an
Atemwegserkrankungen in der deutschen Bevölkerung,” Epidemiologisches Bulletin 16 (April
2020): 7–9, https://doi.org/10.25646/6636.2.
(136) Denis G. Rancourt, “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social
Policy,” River Cities’ Reader (IA), June 11, 2020, https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks
-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy.
(137) Pietro Vernazza, “Atemschutzmasken für alle—Medienhype oder unverzichtbar?,” Klinik für
Infektiologie/Spitalhygiene, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, April 5, 2020, https://infekt.ch/2020/04
/atemschutzmasken-fuer-alle-medienhype-oder-unverzichtbar.
(138) Klaus Wedekind, “Drosten warnt vor zweiter Corona-Welle,” n-tv (Cologne), April 20, 2020,
(139) Joachim Czichos, “Erst Bakterien führten zur tödlichen Katastrophe,” Welt (Berlin), August 11,
2008, https://www.welt.de/gesundheit/article2295849/Erst-Bakterienfuehrten-zur-toedlichen-
Katastrophe.html.
(140) Marie E. Killerby et al., “Human Coronavirus Circulation in the United States 2014–2017,”
Journal of Clinical Virology 101 (April 2018): 52–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2018.01.019.
(141) Mika J. Mäkelä et al., “Viruses and Bacteria in the Etiology of the Common Cold,” Journal of
Clinical Microbiology 36, no. 2 (February 1998): 539–42, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.36.2.539
-542.1998.
(142) “Was Sie über die Grafik wissen sollten, über die Deutschland spricht,” Welt (Berlin), April 26,
2020, https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article207456203/Coronavirus-Stefan-Homburg-unddie-
Grafik-ueber-die-Deutschlandspricht.html.
(143) “Virologe Drosten warnt: Deutsche könnten Corona-Vorsprung verspielen,” Stern, video, 1:04,
April 23, 2020, https://www.stern.de/gesundheit/news-im-video–drosten-warnt—deutschekoennten-
corona-vorsprungverspielen9236028.html.
(144) “RKI warnt in Coronavirus-Krise: Reproduktionszahl wieder über kritischem Wert 1,” MSN
(Germany), May 10, 2020, https://www.msn.com/de-de/nachrichten/coronavirus/rkiwarnt-incoronavirus-
krise-reproduktionszahl-wiederüberkritischem-wert-1/ar-BB13RlEi.
(145) “Sterbefallzahlen in Deutschland steigen an,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 30, 2020, https://www
.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/coronavirenuebersterblichkeit-COVID-19-statistischesbundesamt-1
.4893709.
(146) Jürgen Mladek, “Seehofer stellt Corona-Kritiker kalt,” Nordkurier (Neubrandenburg), May 14,
2020, https://www.nordkurier.de/politik-und-wirtschaft/seehofer-stellt-corona-kritiker-kalt-
1439370305.html.
(147) Seth Flaxman et al., “Estimating the Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on COVID-19
in Europe,” Nature 584 (2020): 257–61, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7.
(148) Comments section below Flaxman et al., “Estimating the Effects of Non-Pharmaceutical
Interventions,” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7#article-comments.
(149) “Why Is Denmark Not Recommending Face Masks to the Public?,” Local (Denmark), May 11,
2020, https://www.thelocal.dk/20200511/why-is-denmark-not-recommending-face-masks-to-the
99
-public.
(150) Hildburg Bruns, “Berlins erste Corona-Klinik,” Bild (Berlin), May 11, 2020, https://www.bild.de
/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/corona-klinik-in-berlin-fertig-knapp-500-betten-im-stand-bymodus-
70577074.bild.html.
(151) Uwe Janssens, “„Wir haben genug Intensivbetten“,” interview by Arndt Reuning,
Deutschlandfunk (Cologne), March 11, 2020, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/coronanotfallplaene-
inkrankenhaeusern-wir-habengenug.676.de.html?dram:article_id=472287.
(152) “Überlastung deutscher Krankenhäuser durch COVID-19 laut Experten unwahrscheinlich,”
Deutsches Ärzteblatt (Berlin), March 12, 2020, https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/111029
/Ueberlastungdeutscher-Krankenhaeuser-durch-COVID-19-lautExpertenunwahrscheinlich.
(153) Barbara Gillmann, “RKI: Zahl der Intensivbetten wird nicht reichen,” Handelsblatt (Düsseldorf),
April 3, 2020, https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/corona-epidemie-rki-zahl-derintensivbetten-
wirdnichtreichen/25712008.html?ticket=ST-3691123-xCgN9jb0yWPZsyeB97s7-
ap5.
(154) Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, Wie wir COVID-19 unter Kontrolle
bekommen, March 2020, https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE
/veroeffentlichungen/2020/corona/szenarienpapier-covid-19.pdf;jsessionid
=8FAD89A1832ABFC4DB485C5625C8DE71.2_cid295?__blob=publicationFile&v=4.
(155) Elena Kuch, Jennifer Lange, and Christoph Prössl, “Kurzarbeit trotz Rettungsschirm,”
Tagesschau (Hamburg), April 22, 2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/ndr
/krankenhaeuser-kurzarbeit-101.html.
(156) Kim Norvell and Jayne O’Donnell, “Thousands of US Medical Workers Furloughed, Laid Off as
Routine Patient Visits Drop During Coronavirus Pandemic,” USA Today, updated April 2, 2020,
workersfurloughedlaid-off/5102320002.
(157) Kit Knightly, “COVID19: Are Ventilators Killing People?,” OffGuardian, May 6, 2020, https://
off-guardian.org/2020/05/06/covid19-are-ventilators-killing-people.
(158) “COVID-19: Beatmung—und dann?,” DocCheck, March 31, 2020, https://www.doccheck.com
/de/detail/articles/26271-COVID-19-beatmung-und-dann.
(159) Martin Gould, “EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s a Horror Movie.’ Nurse Working on Coronavirus Frontline
in New York Claims the City Is ‘Murdering’ COVID-19 Patients by Putting Them on
Ventilators and Causing Trauma to the Lungs,” Daily Mail, updated May 14, 2020, https://www
.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8262351/Nurse-New-York-claims-city-killing-COVID-19-
patientsputtingventilators.html.
(160) Jochen Taßler and Jan Schmitt, “Mehr Schaden als Nutzen?,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), April 30,
2020, https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/monitor/beatmung-101.html.
(161) “„Es wird zu häufig intubiert und invasiv beatmet“,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 7,
2020, https://www.vpneumo.de/fileadmin/pdf/f2004071.007_Voshaar.pdf.
(162) Kristin Kielon, “So Funktioniert Künstliche Beatmung,” Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Leipzig),
March 24, 2020, https://www.mdr.de/wissen/so-funktioniert-beatmung-intensivstation-corona-
100.html.
(163) “Modes of Transmission of Virus Causing COVID-19: Implications for IPC Precaution
Recommendations,” World Health Organization, March 29, 2020, https://www.who.int/newsroom/
commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-foripc-
precaution-recommendations.
(164) Neeltje van Doremalen et al., “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with
SARS-CoV-1,” New England Journal of Medicine 382 (April 2020): 1564–67, https://doi.org/10
.1056/NEJMc2004973.
100
(165) Young-Il Kim et al., “Infection and Rapid Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Ferrets,” Cell Host
& Microbe 27, no. 5 (May 2020): 704–9.e2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2020.03.023.
(166) Matthias Thöns, “„Sehr falsche Prioritäten gesetzt und alle ethischen Prinzipien verletzt“,”
interview by Peter Sawicki, Deustchlandfunk, April 11, 2020, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de
/palliativmedizinerzu-COVID-19-behandlungen-sehrfalsche.694.de.html?dram:article_id
=474488.
(167) David L. Katz, “Is Our Fight against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?,” New York Times,
March 20, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronaviruspandemic-socialdistancing.
html.
(168) CNN, “‘We are creating a catastrophic health care situation,’” Facebook post, video, 6:09, May
2, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/cnn/posts/10160799274796509.
(169) Scott W. Atlas, “The Data Is In—Stop the Panic and End the Total Isolation,” The Hill
(Washington, DC), April 22, 2020, https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in
-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation.
(170) Robert Birnbaum and Georg Ismar, “Schäuble will dem Schutz des Lebens nicht alles
unterordnen,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), April 26, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik
/bundestagspraesident-zurcorona-krise-schaeuble-will-dem-schutz-des-lebensnichtallesunterordnen/
25770466.html.
(171) Miriam Kruse, “Menschenleben versus Menschenwürde?,” SWR Aktuell, April 27, 2020, https://
http://www.swr.de/swraktuell/schaueble-wertediskussion-zu-corona-100.html.
(172) Andy Sumner, Chris Hoy, and Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez, “Estimates of the Impact of COVID-19 on
Global Poverty,” (working paper, United Nations University World Institute for Development
Economics Research, 2020), https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/estimates-impact-covid-19-
global-poverty.
(173) “Amerikas Wirtschaftsleistung sinkt um bis zu 30 Prozent,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, updated
May 18, 2020, https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/usa-notenbank-federwartet-dramatischeneinbruch-
der-wirtschaft-16774864.html.
(174) Ines Zöttl, “US-Arbeitsmarkt in der Coronakrise: US-Arbeitsmarkt in der Coronakrise,” Spiegel
(Hamburg), May 9, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/corona-krise-in-den-usa-der-auftakt
-der-tragoedie-a-532f7a6b-3a0d-4a8f-a38d-db91ead7990b.
(175) “EU vor Rezession von ‘historischem Ausmaß,” Tagesschau (Hamburg), May 6, 2020, https://
http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/corona-eurozone-rezession-101.html.
(176) Benjamin Bidder, “‘Das wird ein Zangenangriff auf Deutschlands Wholstand,’” Spiegel
(Hamburg), May 17, 2020, https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/corona-krise-das-wird-einzangenangriff-
auf-deutschlands-wohlstand-a-eaf27caa-342d-4aca-bcb1-e84b15ca5a2d.
(177) Britta Beeger, “Warum die Arbeitslosigkeit steigt,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, May 4, 2020,
16753941.html.
(178) “Kampf gegen Corona: Größtes Hilfspaket in der Geschichte Deutschlands,” Bundesministerium
der Finanzen, May 22, 2020, https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE
/Standardartikel/Themen/Schlaglichter/Corona-Schutzschild/2020-03-13-Milliarden-
Schutzschild-fuer-Deutschland.html.
(179) Mallory Simon, “75,000 Americans at Risk of Dying from Overdose or Suicide Due to
Coronavirus Despair, Group Warns,” CTV News (Ottawa), May 8, 2020, https://www.ctvnews
.ca/health/coronavirus/75-000-americans-at-risk-of-dying-from-overdose-or-suicide-due-tocoronavirus-
despair-group-warns-1.4930801.
(180) Agence France-Presse, “Australia Fears Suicide Spike Due to Virus Shutdown,” Telegraph, May
7, 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/07/australia-fears-suicide-spike-due-virus-
101
shutdown.
(181) “Mehr Tote durch Schlaganfälle, Infarkte und Suizide erwartet,” BZ (Berlin), May 7, 2020,
und-suizide-erwartet.
(182) Catharine Paddock, “Heart Attack Risk Higher with Job Loss,” Medical News Today, November
20, 2012, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252985.
(183) Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup, “Warum in der Coronakrise nicht nur das Virus die Gesundheit
gefährdet,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin), May 16, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/diegesundheitlichenfolgen-
des-lockdowns-jetzt-sind-es-30-prozentwenigerherzinfarkte-dochspaeter-
werden-es-wohl-mehr/25834148.html.
(184) COVIDSurg Collaborative, “Elective Surgery Cancellations Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic:
Global Predictive Modelling to Inform Surgical Recovery Plans,” British Journal of Surgery,
May 12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11746.
(185) “Anzahl der Sterbefälle in Deutschland nach Altersgruppe im Jahr 2018,” Statista, May 2020,
(186) MarieLuise Dr. Stiefel et al., “Corona: Schützen Sie uns Ältere nicht um diesen Preis!
Selbstbestimmt altern und sterben!” Change.org, PBC, https://www.change.org/p
/bundeskanzlerin-corona-sch%C3%BCtzen-sie-%C3%A4ltere-nicht-um-diesen-preisselbstbestimmt-
altern-und-sterben.
(187) “UNICEF: Höhere risiken für Kinder wegen Massnahmen zur eindämmung des Coronavirus,”
UNICEF, March 23, 2020, https://www.unicef.de/informieren/aktuelles/presse/2020/risiken-fuer
-kinder-bei-eindaemmung-des-coronavirus/213060.
(188) Peter Dabrock, “„Kinder brauchen andere Kinder“,” interview by Anke Schaefer,
Deutschlandfunk Kultur (Berlin), April 14, 2020, https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de
/sozialethiker-kritisiertlange-kitaschliessungenkinder.1008.de.html?dram:article_id=474595.
(189) “Deutschlands Lehrer-Chef: ‘Ein Viertel aller Schüler abgehängt,” Focus, May 8, 2020, https://
allerschuelerabgehaengt_id_11878788.html.
(190) Sue Odenthal and Martina Morawietz, “‘Wir sind extrem blind im Kinderschutz,’” ZDF Heute
(Mainz), April 28, 2020, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-kinderschutzjugendamt-
100.html.
(191) Christoph Hein, “Auf Corona folgt der Hunger,” Frankfurter Allgemeine, April 22, 2020, https://
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/un-warnt-auf-coronafolgt-die-hungersnot-16736443.html.
(192) Leslie Roberts, “Why Measles Deaths Are Surging—and Coronavirus Could Make It Worse,”
Nature, updated April 9, 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01011-6.
(193) Stefan Homburg, “Warum Deutschlands Lockdown falsch ist—und Schweden vieles besser
macht,” Welt (Berlin), April 15, 2020, https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/plus207258427
/Schwedenals-Vorbild-Finanzwissenschaftler-gegen-CoronaLockdown.html?ticket=ST-A-
1309422-NghISRcCkH30TuFUa0V5-ssosignin-server.
(194) Johan Giesecke, “„Lockdown verschiebt Tote in die Zukunft“,” interview by Johannes Perterer,
Addendum, Quo Vadis Veritas, April 24, 2020, https://www.addendum.org/coronavirus
/interview-johan-giesecke.
(195) André Anwar, “WHO lobt Sonderweg: Können wir vom Modell Schweden lernen?,”
Augsburger Allgemeine, May 5, 2020, https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/panorama/WHOlobt-
Sonderweg-Koennen-wir-vom-Modell-Schwedenlernenid57329376.html.
(196) “Ende der Pandemie? Neue Zahlen widersprechen Regierungs-Linie- Punkt.PRERADOVIC mit
Prof. Homburg,” YouTube video, 16:17, interview by Punkt Preradovic, May 4, 2020, posted by
102
“Punkt.PRERADOVIC,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFkMIlKyHoI.
(197) “Wo die Coronavirus-Pandemie ohne Lockdown bewältigt wird,” Der Tagesspiegel (Berlin),
April 18, 2020, https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/von-hongkong-lernenwo-die-coronaviruspandemie-
ohne-lockdownbewaeltigtwird/25752346.html.
(198) Gearoid Reidy, “Japan Was Expecting a Coronavirus Explosion. Where Is It?,” Japan Times,
March 20, 2020, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/03/20/national/coronavirus-explosion
-expected-japan/.
(199) Aria Bendix, “South Korea Has Tested 140,000 People for the Coronavirus. That Could Explain
Why Its Death Rate Is Just 0.6%—Far Lower Than in China or the US,” Business Insider,
March 5, 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-coronavirus-testing-death-rate-
2020-3.
(200) Non-Pharmaceutical Public Health Measures for Mitigating the Risk and Impact of Epidemic
and Pandemic Influenza (World Health Organization, 2019), https://www.who.int/influenza
/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en.
(201) “Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Prof Michael Levitt: Lockdown Is a ‘Huge Mistake,’” YouTube
video, 34:33, interview by UnHerd, posted by “UnHerd,” May 2, 2020, https://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk.
(202) Adelina Comas-Herrera et al., Mortality Associated with COVID-19 Outbreaks in Care Homes:
Early International Evidence, LTC Covid, updated June 26, 2020, https://ltccovid.org/2020/04
/12/mortality-associated-with-covid-19-outbreaks-in-care-homes-early-international-evidence.
(203) avstoesser, “Falsche Prioritäten gesetzt und ethische Prinzipien verletzt,” Pflegeethik Initiative,
Deutschland e.V., April 15, 2020, http://pflegeethik-initiative.de/2020/04/15/corona-krisefalsche-
prioritaeten-gesetzt-und-ethische-prinzipien-verletzt.
(204) “‘No Second Wave’ Despite Record Surge in New COVID-19 Cases, Says Czech Minister,”
Kafkadesk, June 29, 2020, https://kafkadesk.org/2020/06/29/no-second-wave-despite-recordsurge-
in-new-covid-19-cases-says-czech-minister.
(205) “Mandatory Face Masks Should Not Pose Problems, Says Swiss Train Boss,” Swissinfo (Bern),
July 3, 2020, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/mandatory-face-masks-should-not-pose-problems–
says-swiss-train-boss/45879254.
(206) Daland Segler, “„Anne Will“: Wie hart trifft uns die „neue Normalität“?,” Frankfurter
Rundschau, May 29, 2020, https://www.fr.de/kultur/tv-kino/corona-talk-anne-will-ardhart-trifftneue-
normalitaet-zr-13667631.html.
(207) “Corona-Folgen bekämpfen, Wohlstand sichern, Zukunftsfähigkeit stärken,” Federal Ministry of
Finance (Germany), June 3, 2020, https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE
/Standardartikel/Themen/Schlaglichter/Konjunkturpaket/2020-06-03-eckpunktepapier.pdf?_
_blob=publicationFile&v=10.
(208) “‘Es braucht eine globale Anstrengung,’” Tagesschau (Hamburg), April 12, 2020, https://www
.tagesschau.de/ausland/gates-corona-101.html.
(209) Jincun Zhao et al., “Airway Memory CD4+ T Cells Mediate Protective Immunity against
Emerging Respiratory Coronaviruses,” Immunity 44, no. 6 (June 2016): 1379–91, https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.immuni.2016.05.006.
(210) Annika Nelde et al., “SARS-CoV-2 T-cell Epitopes Define Heterologous and COVID-19-
Induced T-Cell Recognition,” preprint, posted June 17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
35331/v1.
(211) Alba Grifoni et al., “Targets of T-Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with
COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals,” Cell 181, no. 7 (June 2020): 1489–501.e15,
(212) Takuya Sekine et al., “Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic
103
or Mild COVID-19,” Cell, (August 2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.017.
(213) Barry Rockx et al., “Comparative Pathogenesis of COVID-19, MERS, and SARS in a
Nonhuman Primate Model,” Science 368, no. 6494 (May 2020): 1012–15, https://doi.org/10
.1126/science.abb7314.
(214) Shibo Jiang, “Don’t Rush to Deploy COVID-19 Vaccines and Drugs without Sufficient Safety
Guarantees,” Nature 579 (2020): 321, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00751-9.
(215) Sanjay Kumar, “Scientists Scoff at Indian Agency’s Plan to Have COVID-19 Vaccine Ready for
Use Next Month,” Science, July 6, 2020, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/scientistsscoff-
indian-agencys-plan-have-COVID-19-vaccine-ready-use-next-month.
(216) “COVID-19-Impfstoff: Antworten auf häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ),” Robert Koch Institut, last
accessed August 27, 2020, https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/COVID-19-
Impfen.html.
(217) Michael Barry, “Single-Cycle Adenovirus Vectors in the Current Vaccine Landscape,” Expert
Review of Vaccines 17, no. 2 (2018): 163–73, https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2018.1419067.
(218) Ewen Callaway, “The Race for Coronavirus Vaccines: A Graphical Guide,” Nature 580 (April
2020): 576–77, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01221-y.
(219) Barney S. Graham, “Rapid COVID-19 Vaccine Development,” Science 368, no. 6494 (May
2020): 945–46, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8923.
(220) Vincent A. Fulginiti et al., “Altered Reactivity to Measles Virus: Atypical Measles in Children
Previously Immunized with Inactivated Measles Virus Vaccines,” JAMA 202, no. 12 (December
1967): 1075–80, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1967.03130250057008.
(221) Hyun Wha Kim et al., “Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease in Infants Despite Prior
Administration of Antigenic Inactivated Vaccine,” American Journal of Epidemiology 89, no. 4
(April 1969): 422–34, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a120955.
(222) Cara C. Burns et al., “Multiple Independent Emergences of Type 2 Vaccine-Derived
Polioviruses during a Large Outbreak in Northern Nigeria,” Journal of Virology 87, no. 9 (April
2013): 4907–22, https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02954-12.
(223) Z. Wang et al., “Detection of Integration of Plasmid DNA into Host Genomic DNA Following
Intramuscular Injection and Electroporation,” Gene Therapy 11 (April 2004): 711–21, https://doi
.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302213.
(224) Barbara Langer et al., “Safety Assessment of Biolistic DNA Vaccination,” Biolistic DNA
Delivery 940 (2013): 371–88, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-110-3_27.
(225) Norbert Pardi et al., “mRNA Vaccines—A New Era in Vaccinology,” Nature Reviews Drug
Discovery 17, (2018): 261–79, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.243.
(226) Peter Doshi, “The Elusive Definition of Pandemic Influenza,” Bulletin of the World Health
Organization 89, no. 7 (July 2011): 532–38, https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.11.086173.
(227) Andreas Zumach, “Der verhängnisvolle Einfluss der Pharmakonzerne,” interview by Dieter
Kassel, Deutschlandfunk Kultur (Berlin), May 16, 2017, https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de
/weltgesundheitsorganisation-derverhaengnisvolleeinfluss.1008.de.html?dram:article_id
=386282.
(228) Carsten Schroeder, “Schweinegrippe: Die Ruhe vor dem Sturm,” Deutschlandfunk (Cologne),
December 15, 2009, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/schweinegrippe-die-ruhe-vor-dem-sturm
.709.de.html?dram:article_id=88702.
(229) “Kanzlerin und Minister sollen speziellen Impfstoff erhalten,” Spiegel, October 17, 2009, https://
a-655764.html.
(230) Michael Fumento, “Why the WHO Faked a Pandemic,” Forbes, February 5, 2010, https://www
.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-
104
michael-fumento.html.
(231) Clare Dyer, “UK Vaccine Damage Scheme Must Pay £120 000 to Boy Who Developed
Narcolepsy after Swine Flu Vaccination,” BMJ 350 (2015): h3205, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj
.h3205.
(232) S. Sohail Ahmed et al., “Narcolepsy, 2009 A(H1N1) Pandemic Influenza, and Pandemic
Influenza Vaccinations: What Is Known and Unknown about the Neurological Disorder, the
Role for Autoimmunity, and Vaccine Adjuvants,” Journal of Autoimmunity 50 (May 2014): 1–
11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaut.2014.01.033.
(233) Urs P. Gasche, “Corona: Medien verbreiten weiter unbeirrt statistischen Unsinn,” Infosperber,
April 26, 2020, https://www.infosperber.ch/Artikel/Medien/Corona-Medien-verbreiten-weiterunbeirrt-
statistischen-Unsinn.
(234) Michael Scheppe, “Risikoforscher erklärt: Das können wir gegen die Angst vor dem
Coronavirus tun,” Handelsblatt (Düsseldorf), March 10, 2020, https://www.handelsblatt.com
/technik/medizin/gerdgigerenzer-im-interview-risikoforscher-erklaert-das-koennenwirgegen-dieangst-
vor-dem-coronavirus-tun/25624846.html.
(235) Christof Kuhbandner, “Von der fehlenden wissenschaftlichen Begründung der Corona-
Maßnahmen,” Telepolis, April 25, 2020, https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Von-der-fehlendenwissenschaftlichen-
Begruendung-der-Corona-Massnahmen-4709563.html.
(236) “12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic,” OffGuardian, March 24, 2020, https://offguardian.
org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic.
(237) “10 MORE Experts Criticising the Coronavirus Panic,” OffGuardian, March 28, 2020, https://off
-guardian.org/2020/03/28/10-more-experts-criticising-the-coronavirus-panic.
(238) “Kritik an Corona-Berichterstattung der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien,” Radio Dreyeckland,
March 27, 2020, https://rdl.de/beitrag/kritik-corona-berichterstattung-der-ffentlich-rechtlichenmedien.
(239) Nils Metzger, “Warum Sucharit Bhakdis Zahlen falsch sind,” ZDF Heute (Mainz), March 23,
2020, https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/coronavirus-faktencheck-bhakdi-100.html.
(240) Charlie Wood, “YouTube’s CEO Suggested Content That ‘Goes Against’ WHO Guidance on
the Coronavirus Will Get Banned,” Business Insider, April 23, 2020, https://www
.businessinsider.com/youtube-will-ban-anything-against-who-guidance-2020-4.
(241) John Oxford, “A View from the HVIVO / Open Orphan #ORPH Laboratory—Professor John
Oxford,” Novus Communications, March 31, 2020, https://novuscomms.com/2020/03/31/a-view
-from-the-hvivo-open-orphan-orph-laboratory-professor-john-oxford.
(242) Rainer Radtke, “Anzahl der Todesfälle nach den häufigsten Todesursachen in Deutschland in
den Jahren 2016 bis 2018,” Statista, August 13, 2020, https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten
/studie/158441/umfrage/anzahl-der-todesfaelle-nach-todesursachen.
(243) “Österreich: Regierungsexperten waren gegen Corona-Lockdown,” RT (Germany), May 14,
2020, https://deutsch.rt.com/europa/102434-osterreich-expertenwaren-gegen-lockdown.
(244) “Dirk Müller: So schlimm wird es NOCH – und wer dahinter steckt! // Mission Money,”
YouTube video, 1:00:27, posted by “Mission Money,” March 26, 2020, https://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=Gf4y0HoEkCU.
(245) Stefan Homburg, “Finanz-Professor: „Das ist das größte Umverteilungsprogramm in
Friedenszeiten“,” interview, Rundblick, April 2, 2020, https://www.rundblick-niedersachsen.de
/finanz-professor-das-ist-das-groesste-umverteilungsprogramm-in-friedenszeiten.
(246) Rubikons Weltredaktion, “Der Corona-Totalitarismus,” Rubikon, March 30, 2020, https://www
.rubikon.news/artikel/der-corona-totalitarismus.
105
About the Authors
Karina Reiss was born in Germany and studied biology at the University of Kiel where she received her
PhD in 2001. She became assistant professor in 2006 and associate professor in 2008 at the University
of Kiel. She has published over sixty articles in the fields of cell biology, biochemistry, inflammation,
and infection, which have gained international recognition and received prestigious honors and awards.
Sucharit Bhakdi was born in Washington, DC, and educated at schools in Switzerland, Egypt, and
Thailand. He studied medicine at the University of Bonn in Germany, where he received his MD in
106
1970. He was a post-doctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics
in Freiburg from 1972 to 1976, and at The Protein Laboratory in Copenhagen from 1976 to 1977. He
joined the Institute of Medical Microbiology at Giessen University in 1977 and was appointed associate
professor in 1982. He was named chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz in 1990,
where he remained until his retirement in 2012. Dr. Bhakdi has published over three hundred articles in
the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology, and parasitology, for which he has received
numerous awards and the Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate. Sucharit Bhakdi and his wife, Karina
Reiss, live with their three-year-old son, Jonathan Atsadjan, in a small village near the city of Kiel.
107
Table of Contents
Title Page 2
Copyright 3
Dedication 5
Acknowledgements 6
Contents 7
1. Preface 10
How everything started 11
Coronaviruses: the basics 11
China: the dread threat emerges 12
2. How dangerous is the new “killer” virus? 13
Compared to conventional coronaviruses 13
Regarding the number of deaths 14
How does the new coronavirus compare with influenza viruses? 21
The situation in Italy, Spain, England and the USA 25
3. Corona-situation in Germany 30
The German narrative 31
The pandemic is declared 32
Nationwide lockdown 35
April 2020: no reason to prolong the lockdown 38
The lockdown is extended 39
Mandatory masks 39
Last argument for extension of lockdown: the impending second
wave? 40
Relaxing the restrictions with the emergency brake applied 42
4. Too much? Too little? What happened? 45
Overburdened hospitals 45
Shortage of ventilators? 48
Were the measures appropriate? 49
108
What did the government do right? 49
What did the government do wrong? 50
What should our government have done? 50
5. Collateral damage 51
Economic consequences 52
Disruption of medical care 53
Drugs and suicide 53
Heart attack and stroke 54
Other ailments 54
Further consequences for the elderly 55
Innocent and vulnerable: our children 56
Consequences for the world’s poorest 58
6. Did other countries fare better – Sweden as a role model? 60
Are there benefits of lockdown measures? 62
So which measures would have actually been correct? 67
7. Is vaccination the universal remedy? 68
On the question of immunity against COVID-19 69
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that is the question 73
Pandemic or no pandemic – the role of the WHO 76
8. Failure of the public media 79
Where was truthful information to be found? 79
Where was the open discussion? 80
The numbers game 81
Defamation and discrediting 82
Censorship of opinions 82
The German “good citizen” and the failure of politics 83
Why did our politicians fail? 85
9. Quo vadis? 87
10. A farewell 90
References 91
109
About the Authors 106
110
INTERESANTE EXPOSICIÓN SOBRE EL SENTIDO FILOSÓFICO DE LA IDEA DE CULTURA Y SUS CONEXIONES CON LA CONCEPCIÓN METAFÍSICA DE LA IDENTIDAD. UNA CRÍTICA DESDE EL MATERIALISMO FILOSÓFICO, Y LAS IMPLANTACIONES POLÍTICAS DE TODO EL NEBULOSO E IDEOLÓGICO ASUNTO EN EL PRESENTE.
NOTA: CONSIDERAMOS IMPRESCINDIBLE LA LECTURA DE ESTE ARTÍCULO DEL FILÓSOFO GUSTAVO BUENO: http://www.filosofia.org/rev/bas/bas22501.htm
Ponemos, a continuación, el párrafo final de este trabajo(Predicables de la identidad- El Basilisco, 2ª época, nº 25, 1999, páginas 3-30) de Gustavo Bueno, trabajo crucial, creemos, para el sistema del Materialismo Filosófico:
La trituración de esta supuesta, al menos en el terreno pragmático, simplicísima idea unívoca de identidad no sería suficiente, sin embargo, para frenar o desviar la fuerza de quienes buscan conseguir sus objetivos amparándose en la «bandera de la identidad». Tampoco podemos esperar de nuestros análisis la disolución de una ideología univocista de la identidad que deriva de fuentes propias. Lo único que buscamos es mostrar a terceros la confusión y oscuridad de quienes reivindican la identidad de su pueblo, de su cultura o de su ego, sin tomarse la molestia de precisar a qué modulación de la idea de identidad se están refiriendo en sus reivindicaciones; o si esta modulación es digna o indigna.
Artículo urgente, pues se está presionando al autor para que no pueda seguir difundiendo información “underground”, pues en tiempos de dis – topía corona, se lo presenta como subversivo, lo cual , según lo políticamente correcto, no puede ni es aconsejable, ser tolerado ni menos “aireado públicamente”lo que argumenta Ernst Wolff.
NOTA, IMPORTANTE, DE INTROFILOSOFIA: Hemos sabido que KenFM anunció hoy martes (27 de octubre de 2020) que cierra su redacción y estudios, y se va de Berlín, porque cada día las trabas institucionales y privadas son mayores en la capital metróploii. Ya tiene problemas en conseguir alguien que esté dispuesto a alquilarle espacios, está siendo censurado en el mundo digital; en los canales digitales y las “benditas redes sociales”, y denuncia que autores analistas como Wolff, Schreyer y otros, y la difusión de sus entrevistas y textos están siendo censurados.
MAS INFORMACIÓN DE INTERÉS SOBRE EL ASUNTO DE LA CENSURA,ETC., Y POR SORPRENDENTE QUE PAREZCA, LEEMOS ALGO APARENTEMENTE DIFÍCIL DE CREER:
La conferencia magistral de Ernst Wolff programada para ayer, 26 de octubre(2020), en el foro de la organización internacional altermundista “Attac” (Foro Porto Alegre y “otro mundo es posible”) fue cancelada por la organización anfitriona con el argumento de que:
“Attac tiene que cancelar lamentablemente este evento, pues en los planteamiento de Ernst Wolff se hace cada vez más evidente que él considera posible que las medidas masivas adoptadas por Corona son una agenda manejada por una élite de consorcios y finanzas. Attac considra esta manera de ver las cosas como falsa, dañina e indiscutible, y no quiere verse asociada con ella.”
El título de la conferencia magistral desinvitada era: The Great Reset: la agenda del complejo digital-financiero”.
FUENTES ORIGINALES:
KenFM
26 de octubre de 2020 (trad. en español/ensayo original en alemán: 5 de abril de 2020)
https://kenfm.de/raid-in-the-shadows-by-ernst-wolff/
[Ernst Wolff, “Raubzug im Schatten”, Portal KenFM, 26 de octubre de 2020. <https://kenfm.de/raubzug-im-schatten-von-ernst-wolff/> y
(Portal Rubikon) <https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/raubzug-im-schatten-2
Operación de saqueo en las sombras | Por Ernst Wolff
Mientras que el mundo entero está mirando embelesado el evento de Corona, los “hedge funds” (fondos de cobertura) están obteniendo enormes beneficios. Impresión exclusiva de un fragmento del libro, Wolff de Wall Street por Ernst Wolff.[Ernst Wolff, Der Wolff von Wall Street, ProMedia Verlag, Viena, octubre de 2020.]
No sólo debemos prestar atención a las cuestiones que se nos imponen en todas partes, sino sobre todo a las que obviamente nos están ocultando. Corona es, además de otras funciones para la élite del dinero y el poder, una enorme táctica de distracción. Mucho antes de 2020, se estaban produciendo en el fondo acontecimientos que podrían resultar muy peligrosos para la prosperidad mundial y la justicia social. La mayoría de las personas deben darse cuenta ahora de que la miseria social, sobre todo el continuo descenso de su nivel de vida que se viene produciendo desde hace años, pero también el declive cultural y el creciente sometimiento de la sociedad a las estructuras políticas autoritarias, tiene sus causas en el actual sistema financiero.
Hoy es domingo, 5 de abril de 2020, y mientras el mundo mira embelesado la propagación de la pandemia de Corona, en el sistema financiero mundial están ocurriendo cosas a gran escala. Desde hace algunas semanas, hemos visto a los “hedge funds” o fondos de cobertura utilizar su poder de mercado para exprimir el sistema existente en su beneficio con la ayuda de los gobiernos y los bancos centrales, para tirar de la alfombra bajo los pies de su mayor competidor -el sector de la pequeña y mediana empresa- y para tomar todas las medidas concebibles para maximizar los beneficios del ahora inevitable colapso económico y financiero.
A menos que alguien los detenga, muy probablemente pronto veremos cómo los fondos de cobertura -apoyados por los políticos y los bancos centrales- nos impondrán un nuevo sistema, adaptado a la medida de la élite financiera y a sus necesidades.
Para entender el trasfondo de este trastorno histórico, es importante alejarse de la idea errónea, que es actualmente la más extendida y la más apoyada por los medios de comunicación, de que todo esto tiene algo que ver con el nuevo coronavirus. El hecho es que los problemas del sector financiero existían mucho antes de la pandemia y habrían tenido consecuencias fatales incluso sin ella. El virus sólo sirve como una ayuda bienvenida a los que dominan el sector financiero. Lleva varias semanas atrayendo la atención de la gente, lo que permite a la élite financiera seguir su propio programa en gran medida sin ser perturbada.
Para entender esta agenda, hay que echar un vistazo al reciente desarrollo de nuestro sistema financiero. Todo comenzó con la desregulación, es decir, la abolición progresiva de las restricciones legales a los bancos. En el curso de esta desregulación fueron permitidos los fondos de cobertura, es decir, las empresas de gestión de activos cuya clientela está formada casi exclusivamente por los denominados „individuos de alto valor neto“ [high-net-worth-individuals], los ultra-ricos de este mundo. Estos fondos de cobertura pueden operar como los bancos, pero no están sujetos a sus restricciones legales. Su autorización fue un regalo histórico para la industria bancaria, ya que permitió a los bancos crear ellos mismos fondos de cobertura y así eludir todas las restricciones legales que se les imponían.
La nueva era del sistema financiero anunciada de esta manera se conoce también como la „era de las langostas“. Los fondos de cobertura no tienen una estrategia fija, sino que están constantemente rastreando el sistema económico y financiero en busca de oportunidades para obtener los mayores beneficios posibles en el menor tiempo posible, y son extremadamente despiadados al hacerlo. De esta manera, se han hecho cada vez más grandes y poderosos desde el cambio de milenio, y su poder financiero hoy en día excede incluso el de los grandes bancos, que ahora están en gran parte en sus manos. Pero este poder históricamente único también trae consigo un problema.
El hecho de que los fondos de cobertura se hayan sometido a una gran parte del sistema los ha hecho altamente dependientes de él, lo que significa que si el sistema es inestable, entonces los fondos de cobertura también lo son.
Y eso es exactamente lo que estamos experimentando. En las últimas semanas y meses se ha producido una concentración de crisis que han sacudido el sistema económico y financiero mundial hasta sus cimientos. En primer lugar, en la segunda mitad del año pasado, se produjo una recesión en muchos países. Normalmente no se trata de una tragedia, pero en este caso la recesión ha golpeado a un sistema extremadamente frágil que se ha mantenido vivo artificialmente durante unos doce años. Además, en enero de 2020, China, el motor más importante tanto de la economía mundial como del comercio mundial, falló e interrumpió las cadenas de suministro y comercio en todo el mundo. Finalmente, Arabia Saudita también provocó que el precio del petróleo se derrumbara dramáticamente a principios de marzo.
En conjunto, estos fueron tres golpes que habrían mandado a cualquier sistema económico y financiero normal al suelo como un boxeador. Pero como el sistema actual es particularmente vulnerable debido a la política monetaria laxa del pasado, actualmente se parece más a un boxeador que no sólo ha sido enviado a los tableros sino que está siendo contado y está intentando en vano volver a ponerse en pie a pesar de todos los gritos de su entrenador.
El papel del entrenador recae en el banco central de EE. UU., la Reserva Federal (FED), que ha intentado todo en las últimas semanas y meses para estabilizar el sistema, pero cuyos esfuerzos han sido infructuosos, y que ahora sólo puede utilizar aquellos medios que a la larga la destruirán. En términos concretos: La FED se ve obligada a bombear más y más dinero en el sistema, aunque esta inundación de dinero seguramente terminará en hiperinflación y destruirá el sistema monetario existente.
El público internacional no se entera casi nada de todo esto. En cambio, los medios de comunicación y los políticos están centrando la atención de la gente exclusivamente en la pandemia Corona, dando así a los fondos de cobertura la oportunidad de utilizar la crisis actual en su propio beneficio, a pesar de las enormes pérdidas y de saquear el sistema en decadencia con el apoyo activo de los bancos centrales. ¿De qué otra forma se puede explicar,
- que los fondos de cobertura, que han tenido problemas por la especulación desenfrenada, son apoyados por los bancos centrales con cientos de miles de millones y billones?
- que la Reserva Federal y el BCE han contratado un fondo de cobertura, a saber, BlackRock, para asesorar y organizar esta distribución?
- que grandes partes de la clase media están arruinadas deliberadamente por el cierre y se enfrentan a la alternativa de declararse en bancarrota o unirse a compañías de plataforma, detrás de las cuales están los grandes fondos de cobertura?
- que a las grandes corporaciones apoyadas por fondos de cobertura, como Amazon, se les permite seguir operando a pesar del cierre, contratar nuevo personal y obtener enormes beneficios, mientras que a los pequeños empresarios se les prohíbe ejercer su profesión?
- que las empresas que han hecho subir el precio de sus acciones en el pasado mediante la recompra de su propias acciones y, por lo tanto, han aportado enormes sumas de dinero para los fondos de cobertura, reciben ahora miles de millones de ayuda con el dinero de los impuestos?
La lista podría continuar a voluntad y llevaría a la misma conclusión una y otra vez: Ninguna de estas medidas sirve a la mayoría de la población trabajadora y ninguna de ellas ayuda a estabilizar el sistema actual. Por el contrario, las medidas están acelerando su ocaso y ayudando a los que actualmente lo están saqueando a estar en primera línea cuando sea relanzado.
Sin embargo, dado que este nuevo comienzo traerá consigo, sin duda, un desempleo masivo, el fin de grandes sectores de las clases medias, una drástica reducción del nivel de vida de la mayoría de la población y una explosión adicional de la desigualdad social, es de esperar que haya resistencia por parte de los afectados y, como respuesta, medidas represivas por parte de los políticos.
Debería llevar a la reflexión el que precisamente esas medidas – bloqueo de contactos entre las personas, prohibición de reuniones, restricciones de viaje y cierre de fronteras – ya se han introducido, con el pretexto de proteger a la población de una pandemia, pero típicamente por los mismos políticos que, en el pasado, han hecho todo lo posible por socavar nuestra atención sanitaria mediante medidas de austeridad siempre nuevas.
Coronavirus: materiales para el análisis y la crítica. Según Rainer Rupp, se trata de un gran regalo celestial , para las élites financieras
KenFM
5 de octubre de 2020
https://kenfm.de/corona-un-regalo-del-cielo-para-la-elite-financiera-por-rainer-rupp/
Corona – Un Regalo del Cielo para la Elite Financiera | Por Rainer Rupp
Un comentario de Rainer Rupp.
No sólo en Alemania, sino también en la Unión Europea y en los Estados Unidos, los poderosos responsables de la toma de decisiones vuelven a asustar a la población con nuevas malas noticias acerca de una segunda onda coronaria.
„Un millón de muertes de COVID-19 en todo el mundo“ fueron los titulares de los últimos días. En todo el mundo, 33 millones de personas están ahora infectadas. A nivel mundial, el número de nuevos casos probados positivamente alcanzó nuevas cifras de 277.937. Cada día, se han añadido 300.000 nuevos casos en los últimos días.
Sin embargo, para el lector atento, escondido en el texto de las Noticias de Job, el velo oscuro se levanta de vez en cuando. Una pieza del rompecabezas de Corona se hace visible, revelando que la situación no es tan mala como la de las ovejas bien portadas con el virus lobo que se supone que está al acecho en todas partes. Por ejemplo, se podría leer la frase en los medios de comunicación de EE.UU.: „El número de casos en EE.UU. se ha acelerado aún más durante el fin de semana, … pero el número de muertes diarias está disminuyendo“. La situación en Europa y Alemania no es diferente. ¿Qué significa esto?
No significa otra cosa que debido a la duplicación y en algunos casos la triplicación de las pruebas de corona, hay por supuesto nuevos números récord de personas probadas positivamente. Pero más personas probadas positivamente junto con la disminución de las muertes es una buena noticia, porque indica una disminución del peligro del virus. Al menos esa sería una conclusión lógica. Las últimas cifras del supuesto Infierno de la Corona de EE.UU. también lo confirman, como veremos a continuación. Pero no hay lógica en el tratamiento de la pandemia de la corona política, porque actualmente las medidas de la corona para controlar la población se están endureciendo de nuevo en Alemania también.
España y Gran Bretaña ya han comenzado un cierre parcial de nuevo. Sin embargo, el fin de semana pasado muchos miles se manifestaron en Londres contra las nuevas regulaciones de la corona. Los gobiernos de Francia e Italia también están jugando con la idea de un nuevo cierre, pero debido a la reticente opinión pública sobre el tema, se han puesto en espera por el momento. Mientras tanto, la Canciller Merkel también ha puesto al soñoliento ciudadano común en el estado de ánimo de nuevas dificultades de la corona debido al mayor número de resultados positivos en las pruebas, si no sigue obedientemente las órdenes de higiene y las prohibiciones de demostración.
Con todo este nuevo entusiasmo, la asociación médica de Alta Austria da en el clavo cuando habla de un „tsunami de laboratorio técnico“. En una entrevista con la asociación regional de periódicos tips.at, el Presidente de la Asociación Médica de Alta Austria, Peter Niedermoser, explicó que las crecientes cifras de infección de la corona no son motivo de pánico. La COVID-19 es una enfermedad peligrosa que no debe ser trivializada, pero no hay una segunda ola, porque las cifras significativamente más altas se deben al número considerablemente mayor de pruebas. Además, en vista de la actividad generalmente más alta del virus en otoño, no hay que perder de vista otras enfermedades como la gripe.
Un colega de Niedermoser, el especialista en microbiología clínica e higiene, Franz Allerberger, que es jefe del departamento de „salud pública“ de la agencia austríaca de nutrición AGES, dijo a „tips.at“ que supone que la corona causa aproximadamente el doble de mortalidad que la gripe estacional. Pero esto significa que la enfermedad sigue siendo mucho menos peligrosa que el SARS o el MERS.
El SARS también se produjo en Europa en 2002-2003 y el MERS en 2012, y ambos provienen de la familia de los coronavirus. La noticia de principios de año, difundida en contra de un mejor conocimiento, de que la corona es un virus completamente desconocido contra el cual nuestro sistema inmunológico no está preparado, fue también uno de los instrumentos utilizados para el alarmismo para hacer que la sociedad se adapte a la nueva crisis financiera que ya se avecinaba en ese momento. Más sobre esto abajo.
La prueba PCR, que se utiliza ahora a nivel mundial y fue aplicada por el virólogo alemán Christian Drosten para la identificación de la corona, identifica partículas extremadamente pequeñas. En la sangre de las personas que se someten a las pruebas se ven incluso restos de virus corona que el propio sistema inmunológico del cuerpo ya había eliminado hace muchos años. La prueba PCR identifica entonces los restos de corona encontrados como positivos para la corona, lo que explica por qué muchas personas supuestamente infectadas no muestran síntomas de Covid-19 y no se enferman más tarde.
Según el Premio Nobel Kary B. Mullis (fallecido en agosto de 2019), inventor del método de prueba PCR, la prueba no es adecuada para los diagnósticos médicos, especialmente cuando se trata de determinar la carga viral en la sangre. La carga viral es el número real de virus en la sangre, de la que depende la probabilidad de que la persona analizada se enferme o no. Según Mullis, la prueba cuantitativa de PCR que se utiliza actualmente en todas partes es una contradicción de términos.
Literalmente, el inventor de la prueba dijo: „La PCR cuantitativa es un oxímoron. Se supone que la PCR identifica cualitativamente las sustancias y, por lo tanto, es naturalmente inadecuada para estimar los números. También existe un concepto erróneo generalizado de que una prueba de carga viral puede realmente contar el número de virus en la sangre. En relación con la búsqueda del desencadenante del SIDA mediante las pruebas de PCR, Mullis declaró en su momento: „De hecho, estas pruebas de PCR no pueden detectar en absoluto los virus libres e infecciosos; sólo pueden detectar las proteínas que se cree que son -erróneamente- exclusivas del virus del VIH. Las pruebas pueden detectar secuencias genéticas de los virus, pero no los virus mismos“.
No obstante, el 17 de enero de 2020, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) publicó recomendaciones sobre la detección del nuevo coronavirus mediante una prueba de PCR. Estas recomendaciones se basan en un protocolo de pruebas desarrollado en enero de 2020 por un equipo dirigido por el virólogo berlinés Christian Drosten. Desde entonces, la prueba de la corona de la PCR de Drosten se ha utilizado en todo el mundo. En un caso conocido personalmente por el autor de estas líneas, una prueba cuesta 149 euros. Sería interesante saber quién gana cuánto con la prueba de PCR.
Mientras tanto, el coro acompañante ya ha estado cantando en los medios públicos y corporativos sobre el nuevo musical de terror de la Segunda Ola de Corona. La advertencia oscura es que la segunda ola podría ser incluso peor que la primera. Y con esta advertencia podrían incluso tener razón, porque ahora viene el invierno y estacionalmente mueren más personas viejas y enfermas que en otras estaciones. Como en los tiempos de Corona nadie morirá de gripe, neumonía crónica u otras enfermedades, el número de personas que mueren de y con síntomas de Corona naturalmente seguirá aumentando.
Sin embargo, no es nuevo que el número de muertes de la corona se haya inflado artificialmente desde el principio. Como recordatorio, quisiera mencionar mi dosis diaria del 4 de septiembre de este año, titulada: „La „Nueva Normalidad“ totalitaria“, en la que se presentaron tres estudios de los EE.UU. y Gran Bretaña, que muestran cómo las estadísticas sobre las enfermedades coronarias y especialmente sobre las muertes coronarias han sido falseadas al alza. Probablemente esto seguirá siendo así, porque en muchos países el Estado ha creado falsos incentivos. Esto se debe a que los hospitales reciben más dinero para los tratamientos con coronas, y por lo tanto también para las muertes por coronas, a través de los fondos estatales de alivio de coronas que para los pacientes con gripe o neumonía.
Aquí hay algunos pasajes cortos de mi columna “Dosis diaria” del 04.09.2020 como recordatorio:
El 22 de agosto de 2020, “21stCenturyWire” informó que los funcionarios de salud británicos fueron sorprendidos falsificando y duplicando fraudulentamente los números de los hospitales Covid-19 en el momento más álgido de la „pandemia“. Revelaciones similares sobre cifras dudosas en las estadísticas oficiales de la corona del gobierno se habían hecho anteriormente. Ya en julio de este año, el Ministro de Salud británico, Matt Hancock, tuvo que admitir que los datos de la „Autoridad de Salud Pública de Inglaterra“ sobre las muertes de la corona habían sido falsificados.
Estas estadísticas falsificadas han sido fundamentales para forzar el cierre, ya que se dio al público la falsa impresión de que había más muertes de Covid-19 que las que realmente habían muerto de Covid-19.
El efecto de la histeria de la corona – en contra de lo que se sabe – suscitada por los medios de comunicación y los políticos en la población asustada se sugiere en una encuesta realizada en julio de este año. Los británicos fueron obviamente tan manipulados que creyeron que estaban lidiando con una pandemia parecida a una plaga. Porque la encuesta reveló que creían que el 7 por ciento de la población británica, o 5 millones de personas, ya habían sido asesinadas por COVID-19.
Mientras tanto, la instrumentalización política de la soberanía para interpretar el virus de la corona en la campaña de las elecciones presidenciales de EE.UU. ha tomado rasgos grotescos. Esto también explica la gran emoción que rodea a la publicación de los datos de mortalidad de Covid-19 por el Centro Nacional de Estadísticas de Salud de EE.UU. (NCHS) el 26 de agosto de este año. El NCHS es parte del Centro de Control de Enfermedades de EE.UU. (CDC), que realiza una función similar a la del Instituto Robert Koch en Alemania.
El informe del NCHS afirma que en sólo el 6 por ciento de las muertes declaradas como COVID-19, el virus corona fue la única causa nombrada. En el 94% restante de las muertes registradas como Covid-19, hubo un promedio de 2,6 enfermedades graves adicionales como enfermedades pulmonares crónicas, hipertensión grave y especialmente enfermedades de gripe que causaron la muerte además de la corona. Así, de las 200.000 muertes de Covid-19 registradas oficialmente en los EE.UU., sólo el 6%, es decir, 12.000 personas, murieron exclusivamente por causa de la corona. Con el gran resto de las 188.000 muertes, que también se cuentan oficialmente como muertes por corona, se detectaron adicionalmente un promedio de otras dos o tres enfermedades que amenazan la vida.
Si y cuántas de las 188.000 personas realmente murieron de corona o murieron de otras enfermedades graves, nadie lo sabe. Sólo habían dado positivo en la prueba de Corona. Pero como ya sabemos, las pruebas de PCR utilizadas no pueden proporcionar información sobre si sólo se encontraron restos de la corona en la sangre del paciente o si la carga de virus de la corona indicaba una infección leve o grave.
En contraste con las actuales historias de horror recurrentes de números récord de pruebas de PCR positivas, los datos recientemente publicados por el Centro de Control de Enfermedades (CDC) de EE.UU. muestran que la letalidad de COVID-19 ha disminuido desde marzo de este año. De hecho, en marzo, el buen Dr. Anthony Fauci, el Dr. Dorsten estadounidense, había estimado la tasa de mortalidad de la corona en un 2%, mientras que la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) había causado aún más pánico con un 3,4%.
Una tasa de mortalidad del 2% habría significado una muerte por cada 50 personas infectadas y una tasa de mortalidad del 3,4% una muerte por cada 29,4 personas infectadas. Esto está muy por encima de las cifras actuales del Centro de Control de Enfermedades de los EE.UU., que se basaron en el desarrollo real del Covid-19 y se publican en el sitio web del CDC.
Por primera vez, la nueva estimación de los CDC también se desglosa por grupos de edad. De acuerdo con esto, la probabilidad de morir después de la infección con el coronavirus en los EE.UU. es la siguiente:
- De 0 a 19 años, 1 de cada 34.000 personas infectadas muere;
- Entre los 20 y 49 años, 1 de cada 5.000;
- Entre los 50 y 69 años, 1 de cada 200,
- y a la edad de 70 años 1 de cada 20 personas infectadas
Basándose en las mismas cifras, las posibilidades de supervivencia después de una infección son las siguientes:
Grupo de edad Probabilidad de supervivencia
- 0-19 : 99.997%
- 20-49 : 99.98%
- 50-69 : 99.5%
- 70+ : 94.6%
Sin embargo, cabe señalar aquí que las figuras de horror del Dr. Fauci y de la OMS han recibido una amplia cobertura de prensa y el correspondiente eco de los políticos. Sin embargo, los caballeros no parecen estar interesados en las nuevas figuras, mucho menos dramáticas. ¿Por qué? ¿Porque el miedo y el pánico de la población por lo que se avecina sigue siendo necesario?
¿Por qué persiste la historia del virus asesino Corona, que ya ha matado a 200.000 personas en los EE.UU.? Este pánico y alarmismo continúa siendo cultivado con gran esfuerzo por las partes interesadas no sólo en los EE.UU. sino también en este país (Aemania). Los que tienen miedo e incluso pánico dejan de pensar con claridad, lo que hace más fácil manipular la sociedad en su conjunto para que se someta. Actualmente, esto último está más que nunca a la orden del día para las élites gobernantes. Y aquí hay una explicación de por qué esto es así:
Después de la última gran crisis bancaria, financiera, económica y de la deuda, hace ahora más de 10 años, el sistema enfermo no se ha rehabilitado ni en los Estados Unidos ni en Europa. En cambio, el día del juicio final se ha ido posponiendo año tras año debido a que se han creado más deudas, se ha imprimido más dinero y se han realizado más transacciones especulativas arriesgadas con trucos siempre nuevos. La estabilidad de los cimientos sobre los que se asienta la economía neoliberal, occidental y su sistema social se ha ido erosionando constantemente.
Ya sea en los Estados Unidos o en la Unión Europea, todos los jugadores de este arriesgado juego de azar al borde del abismo eran conscientes de que en caso de una nueva crisis bancaria y financiera, la población ya no aceptaría un nuevo rescate de los banqueros y los casinos financieros a expensas de la población trabajadora. La clase dirigente y las élites que compraron y pagaron, hace tiempo que lo sabían. Una nueva crisis financiera tendría consecuencias políticas incalculablemente peligrosas para ellos y sus ministros y primeros ministros. Y de hecho, tal crisis ya se avecinaba en la primavera de 2019. Podría entonces retrasarse un poco, sólo para llegar a un punto crítico en el otoño de 2019, sólo para colapsar en los dos primeros meses de 2020.
Y entonces, afortunadamente, llegó Corona.
A principios de enero de 2019, comenzaron a acumularse de nuevo nubes oscuras sobre el mercado financiero de los Estados Unidos, lo que también supuso una amenaza inmediata para los mercados del mundo occidental, que dependen de Nueva York. Después de que el banco central de los Estados Unidos, la Fed, jurara unos meses antes que quería poner fin a su política de bajos tipos de interés, el 4 de enero de 2019, bajo la impresión de la fuerte caída de los mercados bursátiles, dio un giro de 180 grados, volviendo a unos tipos de interés aún más bajos, justo por encima de cero. Con ello se pretendía detener el mercado bajista de las bolsas, que amenazaba con sumir en el caos a los mercados crediticios de los Estados Unidos. En marzo de 2019, las imprentas de dinero de la Reserva Federal ya estaban funcionando a toda velocidad de nuevo.
Las operaciones de rescate del mercado también continuaron en agosto y septiembre de 2019. En agosto, la Reserva Federal bajó sus tipos de interés por segunda vez en el año, y el Banco Central Europeo, en Frankfurt, los puso aún más en números rojos y en septiembre de 2019 puso en marcha un nuevo programa de control de calidad para inundar los mercados financieros con dinero sin intereses. Esto permitió a la Reserva Federal y a los banqueros centrales de otros países occidentales posponer la crisis hasta mediados de septiembre de 2019. Entonces comenzaron los problemas en los mercados de reposición (repos).
El 16 de septiembre de 2019, los mercados de repos se obstruyeron de nuevo y la Reserva Federal inició de nuevo sus operaciones de repos de emergencia por primera vez desde 2009. En primer lugar, se inyectaron 60.000 millones en el sistema bancario durante la noche a través de operaciones de reposición para evitar que los bancos se volvieran insolventes a la mañana siguiente. En ese momento, la Reserva Federal dijo que esta era una operación única. Pero ya en las semanas siguientes, las operaciones nocturnas de reposición de emergencia se convirtieron en la norma, con cantidades cada vez mayores; hasta 180.000 millones en algunas noches de diciembre a finales de 2019.
Según el experto financiero finlandés Tuomas Malinen, „sin estas operaciones de rescate del mercado, la crisis financiera mundial probablemente habría comenzado en enero de 2019 con el colapso de los mercados de crédito de los Estados Unidos. Así que se pospuso de nuevo y el colapso global se esperaba finalmente en la primavera de 2020.
De hecho, la situación se hizo cada vez más desesperada en enero y febrero. Pero para entonces, el rescate en forma de Corona ya estaba a la vista. Para las élites gobernantes y los mercados financieros, Corona fue un regalo del cielo, del que ahora llovía dinero como maná. Corona encubrió con éxito todas las causas de la nueva crisis financiera y económica y las élites gobernantes ya no necesitaron buscar explicaciones y justificaciones para inyectar absurdas y gigantescas sumas de dinero de los contribuyentes en la economía y los mercados financieros para tapar los agujeros que habían surgido debido a sus errores de larga data.
El lunes 16 de marzo de 2020, la Reserva Federal de Nueva York anunció que apoyaría el mercado de repos con préstamos de 500.000 millones de dólares a un día. El martes, la Fed anunció que usaría 1 billón de dólares para comprar bonos de empresas privadas a los emisores. Luego la Fed anunció que crearía una facilidad de crédito para volver a hacer líquidos los fondos congelados del mercado monetario. Así, la Reserva Federal había asumido gradualmente las funciones de los mercados financieros de los Estados Unidos, y para junio de 2020 la Reserva Federal se había convertido efectivamente en la máquina de corazón-pulmón de los mercados financieros estadounidenses quebrados.
Gracias a Corona, los gobiernos, por lo demás tan tacaños, pudieron de repente inyectar trillones de dólares y euros en la economía y los mercados financieros a expensas de la gente común, mientras que grandes sectores de la población se alegraron incluso por este cuidado de las élites por sus puestos de trabajo. Casi nadie pensó en cuestionar quién tendría que pagar en última instancia por todo esto, ya sea por la inflación o el aumento de los impuestos o la disminución del gasto social o, en última instancia, por un colapso devastador de la economía.
Gracias al milagro de Corona, ni el enfermo sistema económico neoliberal ni la política corrupta, incluidos los banqueros y los casinos financieros, son responsables de la renovada crisis financiera. La clase dirigente y sus elites se lavan las manos. Y como la crisis financiera y social está lejos de haber terminado, el virus corona debe seguir siendo altamente peligroso. Debido a que el miedo sigue paralizando a grandes partes de la población y los grupos de ciudadanos rebeldes pueden mantenerse bajo control mediante medidas de higiene de la corona en forma de prohibiciones de manifestaciones y reuniones. Y al hacerlo, las clases dominantes también pueden contar con la aprobación de grandes partes de la población, a la que han incitado con éxito contra aquellos que piensan de forma diferente con la ayuda de „medios de calidad“ que cumplen con las normas.