Corona and the Law: The Pandemic of Inhumanity

Part 1 of a long-form discussion of what should follow now that fraud, deception, and political influence has been proven in German courts: without their recognition, no redemption is possible

Today, in part inspired by

Rikard

’s recent comment, I shall once again venture into the shallows of the Covid charade. Underneath my recent piece (see below), he wrote (with emphasis added by me):

In the movie ‘Erik the Viking’ there's a scene that's a commentary and satire of Experts™, politicians and journalists:

The protagonists are on an island, peaceful, nice, a bit weird—where there’s a prophecy that if a drop of blood is spilled the island will sink.

Which of course happens.

Which the rulers deny to their adoring and believing subjects. While disappearing under the surface.

It is to be hoped that this time, the loons-in-charge actually have created something that will take them out under its own power.

Today, we’ll address the bold-faced aspects; in case you’d like to re-read the piece once more for orientation, here goes:

Who Ordered the 2020 Lockdown?

Today’s content was penned by attorney Sebastian Lucenti, co-written by Cicero’s Franziska Meyer-Hesselbarth, and their article was published on 22 Sept. 2024. In it, the duo takes a hard look at what, under ‘normal’—that would be ‘pre-Covid charade’—conditions would, nay: must, follow now that the RKI Files and additional data from the PEI (Germany’s regulatory agency) are in the public domain.

As always, non-English content comes to you in my translation, with emphases [and snarky commentary] added; in the bottom lines, we’ll re-assess whether the above-reproduced comment is, in fact, a realistic option.

---

Corona and the Law: The Pandemic of Inhumanity

The damage caused by Covid policy is enormous in almost all areas of life. The RKI protocols show that a large part of the standards restricting freedom were tainted with the stigma of unconstitutionality from the outset. The judiciary must take action.

By Sebastian Lucenti and Franziska Meyer-Hesselbarth, Cicero, 22 Sept. 2024 [source]

It was not one of the major newspapers, not one of the major media houses or the public television and radio stations, but the small online magazine Multipolar, which, at considerable expense, brought the RKI’s protocols for the period from January 2020 to April 2021 to the public’s attention before the Berlin Administrative Court based on the Freedom of Information Act (IFG). These protocols had been available since March 2024, initially in a significantly redacted version. Even then, the extent of the redactions indicated that some important RKI internal information was to be concealed from the public as far as possible. The RKI protocols were then published in May 2024—apparently under pressure from the administrative court proceedings in Berlin—with further redactions. Since the end of July 2024, all RKI protocols from the coronavirus period have been available in full, unredacted and with additional material from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), following a high-profile leak. The authenticity of the leaked documents has now been officially confirmed [get them here]

The RKI protocols also confirm a large part of the repeatedly detailed objections to the way the pandemic was combated, which were submitted by lawyers on countless pages to German courts—with a few exceptions, mostly unsuccessful in the end. There were objections to the inconsistencies and obvious deficiencies in the information provided by the authorities. There was substantiated criticism of the assessments of the RKI and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). However, instead of examining the basis of this information from authorities bound by political directives for their plausibility and their factual assertions in evidentiary hearings, courts have made their decisions in thousands of constitutional, administrative, civil and criminal corona proceedings on the untested judicial assumption that the type, scope and timing of the relevant factual knowledge had already been provided by virtue of the impartial and scientifically superior expertise of the RKI and the PEI.

However, the decisive knowledge advantage of the RKI and PEI is based on the fact that these official institutes are supplied with valid health data through the complete and immediate fulfilment of statutory reporting obligations by health authorities, associations of statutory health insurance physicians and hospitals, among others (§§6 ff. IfSG [Infektionsschutzgesetz, Infection Protection Act]). However, this article shows that the necessary data flows were not guaranteed to a considerable extent. Only access to real-time health data from Germany enables the RKI and the PEI to adequately fulfil their statutory duties to protect the life and health of the population. Otherwise, its exposed position vis-à-vis other scientific expertise would no longer apply.

The fatal judicial assumption of superior expertise on the part of the RKI was already legally flawed in view of the fact that this institute was obviously structurally bound by instructions. However, it was also clearly built on nothing due to the already weak evidence of the risk upgrading of Sars-CoV-2 on 17 March 2020, which was followed by the first so-called ‘lockdown’ in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany on 22 March 2020.

A considerable part of the factual knowledge that has been successively available since 2020 but ignored by the courts has been presented and legally categorised in the author’s online articles published in March 2023. Above all, the erroneous decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) of 19 Nov. 2021 on the Federal Emergency Brake I and II [orig. Bundesnotbremse] and of 27 April 2022 on the obligation to provide proof of vaccination [Covid Passports] in the healthcare sector (which expired on 1 Jan. 2023) in accordance with Section 20a IfSG old version, of the Federal Administrative Court of 7 July 2022 on the military’s obligation to tolerate vaccination against Covid-19 [a NCO who refused has recently been found ‘guilty’ of insubordination and, while he refuses to pay, has been imprisoned; he’s currently on hunger strike], and a large number of administrative and constitutional court decisions on the state coronavirus protection ordinances from 2020 to 2024 shows that an evidence-based independent legal investigation must be carried out into the actions, omissions and timing of available factual knowledge of the responsible decision-makers be they politicians, responsible authorities, scientific policy advisors, and the resulting avoidable damage.

This also includes a consistent public investigation into how a jurisdiction could establish itself that, according to this side’s view, has for years approved serious breaches of the law by the legislature and executive with considerable long-term health, economic, and social damage for the population—especially for millions of children and young people—and thus given the appearance of legality [that is the point here: apart from the ‘right-wingers bad’ notions, all other parliamentary factions are implicated as well as the Merkel and Scholz-led governments].

Initial Reactions of the Judiciary to the RKI Protocols

What are the legal implications of the published protocols and other RKI documents for judicial decisions based on official expert knowledge?

The initial reactions of the judiciary show a defensive attitude similar to a ‘Semmelweis reflex’ in the decisions of the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg of 11 April 2024 and the Higher Administrative Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania of 16 April 2024. Both courts assume that the RKI protocols are not to be taken into account, as the legislator at state level had no knowledge of the RKI protocols. Only the later published technical information of the RKI according to §4 II IfSG would be relevant; internal RKI opinions are irrelevant [this is BS: if you or me claim ignorance about, say, declaring this or that income on the tax declaration, we are fined; the same principle applies to the ‘ignorance’ defence here: these ‘internal RKI opinions’ existed, but they weren’t shared/disseminated because, as the current head of the RKI stated in court, under oath: ‘of course we take orders’]

In view of the far-reaching cooperation between the RKI and the competent state authorities and reporting obligations (§4 I sentence 3, II no. 3, II no. 5 IfSG) regulated in the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), knowledge or at least a legal attribution of knowledge at state level is likely to exist [this is about as damning, legally speaking, as such legalese goes, by the way]. In not doing so, the judiciary becomes a promoter of legal violations of the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) committed by state institutions with their eyes open [which is why I think it’ll take quite a judge to rule against literally the entire profession]. It rewards violations of the IFG in the sense of a continuing power of interference at the expense of citizens with the argument that the knowledge may have existed, but in the ‘wrong’ place [again, a different example would be claimed, or feigned, ignorance of speed limits—you’d still get fined].

In the meantime, it has been proven that the RKI had decided, despite the validity of the Freedom of Information Act, to deal sparingly with the release of the requested information, to provide only partial information, to delay contrary to the information release deadline of one month of §7 V IFG and, in case of doubt, to allow itself to be sued. The leaked minutes of the video conference from 2 Oct. 2020 state:

Legal department gets an overview of large FOIA requests, rather refuse until sued.

If serious, objectively unjustifiable infringements of fundamental rights are legitimised by courts in the long term because state institutions have successfully committed further violations of the law, this is tantamount to a declaration of bankruptcy of the rule of law and an invitation to future violations of the law. [told you so in autumn 2021]

The inclusion of the RKI protocols in the taking of evidence in court is unavoidable under these aspects. They cannot be casually brushed aside without examining their specific content and the resulting evidential value of the official information. This is because the administrative courts are under a legal obligation to investigate the facts of the case (Section 86 I VwGO) [muahahahaha: it didn’t stop them from not doing so until now, and let’s not forget it’s the same compromised judiciary that should now, in taking the RKI files into consideration, arrogate tons of blame on themselves]. At federal level, this knowledge could lead to even more serious consequences for the legal assessment of the legislative process in the coronavirus crisis. [we need public trials for the main (alleged) culprits, beginning with the Merkel and Scholz gov’t and extending all the way to those who followed these illegitimate orders, such as Buchenwald Concentration Camp whose director barred ‘the unvaccinated’ from visiting]

For example, members of the federal government and the federal health ministers concerned were apparently aware that there had been considerable political influence on the scientific work of the RKI and the content of the published technical information. At the same time, as members of the German Bundestag, they repeatedly allowed parliament to vote on legislative amendments with far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights with reference to the findings of ‘science’ or the RKI—without first informing parliament of the instructions given [two things to note: first, the gov’t ‘allowed’ the Bundestag…that’s a strange way to talk about the separation of powers and the inversion of hierarchy within a constitutional republic, which, technically speaking, holds that the legislative is above the executive branch; second, successive gov’ts knowingly lied to the Bundestag, curtailed constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, and mandated medical interventions with resulted in bodily harm, incl. disability and death, of the people: if that’s not ‘high treason’, I don’t know what else would be].

At the same time, a large number of details of the factual framework relevant to the decisions were withheld from the courts or—as in the case of the risk assessment—misinformation was even provided and missing reporting data was ignored [the selective application of the law is: tyranny]. The latter had a particularly disastrous effect, as the greater the risk, the more drastic the restrictions on fundamental rights can be in order to avert this very risk from a proportionality perspective.

A Bang from the Osnabrück Administrative Court

In the meantime, the Osnabrück Administrative Court has become the first administrative court in Germany to hear the current RKI President and former head of the Corona Crisis Unit Prof. Dr. Schaade as a witness to explain passages of the RKI protocols relevant to the decision in proceedings concerning a ban on entering and working in accordance with Section 20a IfSG (old version) for an unvaccinated hospital nurse on 3 Sept. 2024 [I linked to this above, for good measure, click here]. In our opinion, the court’s assessment of the testimony of the RKI President and the evaluation of the RKI protocols have shown that there are serious doubts about the independence of the RKI’s scientific expertise and that the legislature has not fulfilled its duty to observe standards [well, in the preceding paragraph you people wrote that successive gov’ts and the RKI lied to the legislature: why are you refusing to call a spade a space?].

The Osnabrück Administrative Court is convinced that the statutory obligation to provide evidence has become unconstitutional in the course of 2022, so that it has referred this question to the Federal Constitutional Court for a decision. During this testimony—as reported by various trial observers, including the author—the RKI President admitted under intense questioning that the justification for the lockdowns and risk assessments, as well as other sub-topics, were not the result of the RKI’s scientific work, but a ‘management issue’.

The risk upscaling of the RKI on 17 March 2020 should also be placed in this area, if one considers that Prof. Dr. Schaade—as can be seen from a chat message from Prof. Wieler to the daily newspaper Die Welt dated 4 April 2024 and a reply from the Federal Ministry of Health dated 12 July 2024—decided on the risk upgrade together with the former RKI President Prof. Wieler on 15 March 2020 (Sunday) in a meeting outside the coronavirus crisis team set up for such issues [a gigantic red flag, if there ever was one: in Germany, § 129 (criminal conspiracy) of the Criminal Code appears to apply; we’ll talk about the implications in the bottom lines below].

To put it bluntly: the first lockdown in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany was apparently largely based on political or ministerial influence on the RKI, which was sold to the public and the courts as an independent scientific risk assessment [that relates, likely, to § 263 (on fraud) of the Criminal Code]. In doing so, the RKI President himself brought the legal basis of the Federal Constitutional Court, many administrative courts, criminal courts, and civil courts to a crashing halt [was this a gaffe? I mean, surely Prof. Schaade didn’t mean to implicate himself, which is what he did].

The RKI Protocols as a Rear-View Mirror for Court-Ignored Factual Knowledge

Detailed analysis of the un-redacted RKI protocols leads to the conclusion that they (simply) reflect the factual knowledge that has been available for years [so, ‘the Science™’ and the ‘scientific™’ integrity (sic) of Professors Schaade, Wieler, Drosten, and, really, the whole roster of ‘Experts™’ paraded across TV screens in the past 4+ years are compromised and they should be held accountable; ‘critical’ professors, such as Ulrike Guérot (fired over allegations of plagiarism), were persecuted while others, such as Alena Buyx, head of the Orwellian German Ethics Council (Ethikrat), are poised to receive the Federal Order of Merit (Bundesverdienstkreuz) on 1 Oct.]. Since the RKI was bound by instructions and adapted its statements to the wishes of politicians, the protocols reveal that contradictions, ambiguities and inaccuracies in the official statements were systematically concealed, indeed had to be concealed [for good measure, let’s note that these individuals also, likely, committed §81 (high treason)].

The public was presented with a distorted picture, which was doubly macabre in the case of the 2G rules: the publicly communicated protection of others through vaccination did not exist, nor did the risk situation for the general population from corona infections postulated by the RKI. In a real risk situation, it would never have been possible to maintain infection-promoting and misleading references to the given external protection on the basis of 2G rules in the period of validity at that time from 15 Nov. 2021 to 2 April 2022.

The discrepancy between communicated and actual factual knowledge runs like a red thread through these events, which the RKI protocols make comprehensibly clear in detail [gotta give it to ‘ze Germans’: they are thorough, even when they are doing all these things]. This means that the factual and decision-making basis could have been started immediately before the first lockdown on 22 March 2020. It was precisely at this point in time that the Federal Health Ministry and RKI, among others, were working flat out to burn (supposed) scientific assumptions and parameters into the public’s consciousness, which formed the foundation of the government’s protective measures against Covid-19 for the years 2020 to 2023 [rendered into plain English: RKI officials and the Health Ministry knew better, but they decided to deceive, defraud, and, ultimately, deprive the citizenry of their fundamental, constitutionally enshrined rights and liberties—which is why I repeat that these people should be put on trial for, among other things, §81 (high treason)].

To date, neither the Federal Constitutional Court nor the administrative courts nor civil courts have ever dealt with the evidence of the risk assessment and the systematics of the executive’s decision-making process for the first lockdown [let’s all remember that Weimar Germany’s constitution had an emergency clause, Art. 48, the so-called Notstandsparagraph, which enabled successive chancellors and presidents of Germany to rule by decree—before Hitler was installed in the Wilhelmstraße; note that this doesn’t meant Hitler didn’t (ab)use the clause, it simply means that this has happened before, it’s an entirely unsavoury history (often omitted because Hitler is the bete noire, almost like the devil incarnate, of our post-1945 para-ideological disposition), and it begs serious questions about what remains of the rule of law]. It needs to be clarified that, according to point 3 of the RKI minutes of 16 March 2020 (current risk assessment), a new risk assessment was supposed to have been prepared the previous weekend and the RKI’s risk upgrade is to be published this week as soon as Prof. Dr. Schaade gives the signal for this.

Concrete details on the decisive considerations of this risk upgrade can neither be found in the RKI minutes of the previous week nor in the RKI minutes of 16 March 2020. Acting RKI President Prof. Dr. Schaade justified the official risk upgrade of Covid-19 for the population on 17 March 2020 from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ in the recorded questioning of the Health Committee of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate on 20 June 2024 as follows:

• the exponential increase in the number of cases (with positive PCR tests) [strangely, the term ‘cases’ should be in scare quotes, but it isn’t]

• various model calculations (without a reliable empirical database) [hi, Prof. Ferguson of Imperial College and all the other modelling fraudsters]

• the avoidance of the feared overloading of hospitals and intensive care units with reference to the [doctored] images from Bergamo, Italy [this, too, is now accepted as a psy-op]

An objective look at the data situation in Germany published by the RKI in March 2020 showed no national medical threat. On 17 March 2020, twelve deaths with a positive PCR test (with and of the coronavirus) were registered and treated nationwide. The argument of the exponential increase in the number of positive PCR test cases should have made the courts suspicious in view of the almost tripled test numbers with only a minimal increase in the test positivity rate.

At this point, it should be noted that in the spring of any year, a statistically regular number of deaths of around 9,000 people per week occur in German hospitals and from this moment onwards, after the changes brought about by the executive to the healthcare system, the deaths took place outside the hospitals. In this respect, it is to be feared that a large number of people in medical emergencies—away from Corona—have died due to the withheld medical treatment benefits of a hospital [let’s add, for good measure, courts should therefore enquire whether the Merkel and Scholz gov’ts are liable under §211 (killing, or Totschlag, i.e., manslaughter) and §212 (homicide), and do so considering the large number of people who were denied medical treatment on these fraudulent and treasonous grounds].

In any case, the RKI’s risk upgrade was not based on data of high hospital utilisation or a threatening number of severe hospitalised cases in Germany, but on abstract positive PCR test case numbers (without differential diagnostics) and error-prone model calculations. The RKI was aware of the problem of the massive increase in test numbers initiated by the then Minister of Health Jens Spahn at an early stage, as the RKI protocols from April and May 2020 show (emphasis added by the team of authors):

The general question is whether the number of cases is currently rising due to increased testing. An increase in testing can create an artificial increase without changing the epidemiological course, but we lack reliable data on this. Testing has actually increased, while the proportion of positives has fallen from 13 to 8.5 %. (RKI protocol from 06 April 2020, p. 7)

BMG paper ‘test, test, test’/AG Diagnostics: paper comes from Jens Spahn, working level was not heavily involved in advance. (RKI minutes from 22 April 2020, p. 6)

While the testing of asymptomatic persons was not recommended at the beginning of the epidemic, according to the announcement by BM Spahn and instructions from the Federal Ministry of Health of 17 April 2020, asymptomatic contact persons should also be tested. (RKI protocol of 13 May 2020, p. 6).

Ultimately, as RKI President Schaade explained on 20 June 2024, the RKI’s risk assessment also sought to ‘get ahead of the wave’. This prognostic understanding not only contradicts the RKI’s own risk assessment for Covid-19 in several ways, but the RKI based this assessment on error-prone model calculations, used foreign data in some cases, and did not include available data on the causal utilisation of hospitals and intensive care units in Germany by Covid-19 patients. Overall, it is now clear that, in view of this approach, there was no conclusive basis for the assessment of an alleged exceptional health risk situation for the population in Germany.

This finding is contrasted with the published basis of the RKI risk assessment since March 2020 to date as follows:

COVID-19: Basis for the risk assessment of the RKI

The Robert Koch Institute continuously records the current situation, evaluates all information and assesses the risk for the population in Germany…The risk assessment is the description and assessment of the situation for the population in Germany. It does not refer to the health of individuals or specific groups in the population, nor does it make any predictions for the future. The risk assessment takes into account

• the current state of knowledge available on the international situation,

• the current state of the epidemiological situation in Germany

• the availability of protective and treatment measures.

…however, the three criteria used for the severity assessment (extent of damage) or indicators (transmissibility, severity profile, and resource burden) are each assessed using quantifiable parameters.

In violation of the self-prescribed risk assessment principles and without any recognisable evidence, the upscaling already decided by the RKI on 16 March 2020 was carried out at a rapid pace:

• 17 March 2020: upscaling of the risk assessment by the ‘management level’ of the RKI

• 24 March 2020: the draft law for the protection of the population in the event of an epidemic situation of national significance (1st Population Protection Act) and

• 27 March 2020: the German Bundestag’s declaration of a pandemic of national proportions.

Together, these formed the basis for sending around 84 million people—including children and young people—into the first lockdown in German history without any prior systematic consideration of the consequences by the executive in the decision-making process. But even later—as can be seen from the RKI protocols—the foreseeable serious health consequences of the lockdown for the population went unnoticed by politicians [let’s throw in §15 (negligence) of the criminal code into the mix].

Another aspect concerns the scientific usability of the RKI’s technical information with regard to the lack of or unproven protection against infection and transmission through vaccination. For the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, for example, this was already apparent from the approval documents of December 2020 and, according to the statement of the witness Schaade of 3 Sept. 2024, this was known to the RKI from the outset. Another aspect concerns the German data processed by the RKI on the evidence of the effectiveness of Covid vaccines against severe courses and the safety of Covid vaccines. The astonishingly high proportion of hospitalised persons with [allegedly] ‘unknown’ vaccination status in 2021 and 2022 reported to the RKI is also a relevant topic for court hearings.

With regard to the numerous considerable restrictions on freedom associated with the vaccination status and the importance of this domestic data for drug monitoring, it needs to be clarified why the reporting obligations of hospitals for Covid-19 hospitalisations were only extended to include the vaccination status with an ordinance dated 11 July 2021 in accordance with Section 1 II No. 1 g). In the RKI protocol of 4 August 2021, the section on communication expresses the RKI’s remarkably reluctant willingness to be transparent:

Data on the vaccination status of deceased and hospitalised persons is frequently requested. Can we and do we want to provide this data?

• Could these either be mentioned in the weekly report or explained why this is not useful?

• Would you like an explanation of vaccination breakthroughs?

• A language regulation is in place for deaths.

ToDo: in the weekly report, state the reason why it is difficult to show corresponding figures, Mr. Harder will clarify this with Mr. Michaelis and Mr. Wichmann.

Furthermore, it remains unclear why a considerable proportion of hospitalised persons were not aware of their own vaccination status in times of 2G and 3G regulations [let your imagination run wild here: might (sic) it be because they were all vaxxed to the hilt, which would have uncovered the PHRAUD by these ‘politicos™’, ‘scientists™’, and ‘journos™’?], why they were not recorded by the hospitals, and why the reporting violations that occurred over the years were not punished with fines or administrative orders. One possible cause could be that the high proportion of vaccinated hospitalised persons was not reported in order to protect the federal government’s vaccination campaign from a loss of confidence at all costs. Whether this or other causes were decisive will also be an interesting topic for court hearings [hear, hear].

Far-Reaching Legal Consequences of the RKI Protocols

The findings of the Osnabrück Administrative Court’s hearing of evidence are fundamental and mark the start of a serious legal reappraisal in German courtrooms in all areas of law affected by the coronavirus measures. This is because the RKI’s selection and evaluation of scientific studies, epidemiological data and its own evaluations—supposedly—provided essential scientific foundations for the PEI and the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO).

If future court hearings in other legal proceedings provide serious evidence of critical scientific errors, influence by the Federal Health Ministry on the content or meaningful changes to scientific information from the RKI and PEI, or untruthful testimony by representatives of the authorities, the overdue legal reappraisal in German courtrooms can be carried out using the following means, among others:

• The reopening of criminal proceedings concluded by final judgements (§§359 ff. StPO [Strafprozessordnung, or General Rules for Criminal Proceedings])

• The reopening of administrative and civil court proceedings concluded by final judgement (Sections 153 I VwGO, 578 ff. ZPO [comparable general rules for civil and administrative proceedings])

• The replacement of the official expertise of the RKI or PEI with expert opinions commissioned by the court (Section 412 ZPO)

• The rejection of expert [sic] authors of specialised information from the RKI or PEI due to concerns of bias (Sections 406 I, 41, 42 ZPO), which leads to the unsuitability of official information

• If necessary, rejection of judges due to concerns of bias who, knowing that the PEI and RKI are bound by instructions, evade necessary evidence and continue to refer generally to the demonstrably non-neutral ‘official expertise’

• Due consideration of the significantly reduced evidential value of the official information from the RKI and/or PEI in the context of the procedural assessment of evidence

• If necessary, correction of erroneous decisions of the lower courts in the context of appeal or revision proceedings

• Application for a specific review of the constitutionality [orig. Normenkontrolle, which sounds so boring but, if carried out, this is a true zinger because it will be a line-by-line reading of all laws, decrees, and ordinances, as well as of the scientific literature on which these decisions were based] of the respective provision of the IfSG deemed unconstitutional for submission to the Federal Constitutional Court (Art. 100 I, III GG)

• If applicable, official liability/state liability for issuing and/or complying with unlawful technical supervisory instructions, including aiding and abetting procedural fraud by public officials.

The forthcoming legal reassessment of the corona measures will involve a comprehensive judicial investigation of the facts and meticulous taking of evidence. The tried and tested procedural tools, as impressively demonstrated to the rest of the judiciary by the Osnabrück Administrative Court, must be applied. In this respect, it is to be expected that in many other judicial corona proceedings, motions for evidence will be filed to question decision-makers and employees of the RKI, PEI, STIKO, and the Federal Health Ministry, with the RKI protocols being presented and independent expert opinions being obtained.

The date of the oral arguments before the Federal Administrative Court on 28 May 2024 already gave an important indication of how such hearings will turn out. One day before the hearing date, the obligation to tolerate soldiers was lifted, although it had still been considered necessary a few weeks earlier. The Bundeswehr’s ‘justification’ at the hearing for this last-minute change in its own position contained the word ‘hospitalisation rate’ in an otherwise almost incomprehensible sentence—a full 2½ years after the emergence of the Omicron variant [ass-covering galore].

Legal Consequences of the PEI’s Omissions and Concealment of Facts (‘PEI Files’)

The revelations in the RKI protocols about the influence of the Federal Health Ministry and members of the Federal Government on the ‘management level’ of the RKI also have an impact on the usability of the official information from the PEI and STIKO in court. This is because the PEI’s drug monitoring and the STIKO’s vaccination recommendations are based to a large extent on scientific information from the RKI. Furthermore, the PEI is also a federal institute within the purview of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG). The contradictory and evasive information provided by the PEI in proceedings under the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) offers multiple indications that the PEI has significantly violated its official duties to monitor the novel Covid-19 vaccines—possibly on ministerial instructions [if that’s the case, and homicide having no statute of limitations, see you in court, I suppose] so as not to jeopardise the vaccination campaign.

These include in particular:

• the failure to fulfil the obligation of active pharmacovigilance in accordance with Section 13 V IfSG

• shutdown of the adverse reaction database for all suspected cases of vaccination reactions and vaccination complications reported in Germany from 2000 to 2021 in spring 2022

• refusal to publish the vaccine manufacturers’ safety reports or PSUR reports (PSUR = periodic safety update report)

• lack of interest in even taking note of and analysing the evaluation of the physician-coded billing data on adverse vaccination reactions published by BKK ProVita on 21 Feb. 2022

• PEI’s failure to conduct a detailed analysis of the discrepancy between the number of suspected adverse reactions and suspected deaths from the PEI and the KBV billing data from 16 June 2022

• failure to mention the underreporting of 90% to 95% with only passive surveillance in the safety reports, which can be assumed according to international studies and PEI publications

• significant delay of the SafeVac study by extending the data collection phase from 12 months to 21 months

• lack of review of vaccine safety based on the published random sample examinations by pathologist Prof. Dr. Schirrmacher from Heidelberg University in August 2021, according to which 30-40% of the people examined died as a result of the vaccination

• failure to issue reports of suspected adverse reactions and batch-related analyses

• lack of public reference to the significantly higher rate of suspected adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines in women

• lack of information on possible long-term risks of the vaccines and

• lack of reference to the temporary overload of the PEI’s pharmacovigilance department, as there were temporarily only 13 employees (including students employees).

Considering the massive short-circuiting of the authorisation procedure by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the initially only conditionally authorised and novel Covid-19 vaccines, as well as continued studies on safety and efficacy (phase III) after the start of vaccination, there is a considerable ‘minus’ in drug safety [this is an attorney getting visibly agitated and informing the attentive reader of a massive legal problem]

In return, this requires a corresponding ‘plus’ in pharmacovigilance and drug monitoring. Against this background is the declared and justified will of the legislator, which was expressed in the new version of Section 13 V IfSG of 3 Nov. 2020. With this provision, the associations of statutory health insurance physicians were deliberately obliged to report health insurance data, in particular ICD diagnosis codes and other vaccine-related data, to the RKI and make it available to the PEI for drug monitoring (active pharmacovigilance) due to the introduction of the novel Covid-19 vaccines and the high underreporting of adverse drug reactions known since 2001. The declared aim of the legislator was to obtain better data on the frequency, severity, and long-term course of vaccination side effects as soon as possible. The appalling implementation record to date corresponds graphically to the ECG line of a dead person [now the attorney is losing it].

In particular, the following official documents published by the Federal Health Ministry (BMG) and PEI since 2024 will be relevant in future court hearings:

• An urgent written request from the BMG to the PEI dated 20 Oct. 2020 to provide information by 21 Oct. 2020 on what data is required for drug surveillance after the market launch of all Covid-19 vaccines (‘post-marketing surveillance’)

• PEI recommendation of 21 Oct. 2020 to the BMG to conduct a cohort study based on anonymised health insurance data on the safety of Covid-19 vaccines, active surveillance, and the parallel transmission of health insurance data of vaccinated persons to the PEI.

However, even after more than 3½ years, the PEI still does not have the required health insurance data because the associations of statutory health insurance physicians did not provide it for years in violation of Section 13 V IfSG, whereby not a single fine was imposed on the defaulting organisations, contrary to Section 73 (1a) No. 2a IfSG. In addition, the RKI started the data interface necessary for processing the data so late in-house that the programming work did not begin until the third quarter of 2021 and had not been completed by September 2023, as a reply from the BMG dated 22 Sept. 2023 to a parliamentary enquiries revealed [at this point, and given the appalling, if systemic failures here, we must ask: is this sheer incompetence?].

However, it is difficult to understand why the Federal Administrative Court, in its dismissive decision of 7 July 2022 on the obligation to tolerate Covid-19 vaccines in the military, played down the documented safety-relevant violation of Section 13 V IfSG as an unacceptable ‘enforcement deficit’ and, like the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision of 27 April 2022 on the obligation to provide evidence in the healthcare system, regarded the PEI’s safety reports as reliable, expert official information. Even then, this assessment was incorrect and is now untenable due to the PEI Files [hear no evil, see no evil, it appears, was the guideline here].

Neither the PEI witnesses heard by the Federal Administrative Court in 2022 nor the then-President of the PEI, Prof. Dr. Klaus Cichutek, considered it necessary to inform the public and the courts about the actual state of drug monitoring of Covid-19 vaccines [that alone would be a first-rate scandal]. An analysis of the correspondence conducted behind the scenes between the PEI and the RKI reveals a frightening picture, visible only through their responses to a large number of FOIA requests. These documents include the following reply from the PEI dated 29 July 2021 to an enquiry from the RKI dated 6 July 2021 in connection with the monitoring of Covid-19 vaccines:

Spontaneous reports of suspected cases of adverse reactions are suitable for signal detection. A corresponding reporting obligation exists in the Infection Protection Act. However, spontaneous reports are generally not suitable for analysing the frequency, severity, and causality of potential vaccination risks…In order to be able to use the data from the health insurance providers to analyse the safety of the vaccines, the PEI must be able to link the individual pseudonym of a vaccinated person with the insurance data to be transmitted in accordance with the IfSG, which is currently not possible as the PEI does not have these data [authorities were flying blind]…Of particular importance for assessing the safety of vaccines are serious side effects such as neurological diseases, autoimmune diseases, strokes and heart attacks, or currently thromboses with thrombocytopenia, which are usually diagnosed and treated in hospital and which are probably not reflected in the insurers’ data. In order to be able to comprehensively assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, it would therefore be helpful to analyse health insurance data in addition to the insurers’ data.

The PEI’s letter ends with a paragraph that packs a punch:

Conclusion: In order to be able to adequately assess the safety of pandemic vaccines, the PEI needs the pseudonym of vaccinated individuals. This enables the evaluation of health insurance data as well as the secondary data analysis of health insurance data for the purposes of pharmacovigilance, provided that it can be shown that the pseudonym is suitable for analysing these data sources. If this is not the case, a comprehensive assessment of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines based on German data is not possible.

After all this, it should have become apparent that the PEI did not have a reliable basis for monitoring the safety of the novel Covid-19 vaccines after the start of the vaccination campaign and that the procedural probative value of the findings in the PEI’s safety reports must be critically scrutinised [which means, in effect, cross-examination in court for the long laundry list of criminal offences listed above (and, likely, also some more so far unmentioned)]. While the courts have so far based their decisions on 2G and 3G regulations, including their assessment of sectoral vaccination requirements, to provide evidence and claims for damages by vaccination victims on the assumption that the PEI has carried out proper drug monitoring [which was not carried out, i.e., hundreds, if not thousands, of court cases must be re-opened], among other things, this will have to be reviewed in the context of court witness interviews with other responsible persons from the PEI and RKI and by obtaining independent medical expert opinions.

Under the header of an evident ‘enforcement deficit’ [orig. Vollzugsdefizit, i.e., decisions arrived at on the basis of incomplete or fraudulent evidence] that is unacceptable under the rule of law, courts will also have to clarify the legal consequences of continued and serious violations of the ‘duty to observe’ [orig. Beobachtungspflicht] postulated by the Federal Constitutional Court or, in the area of the duty of soldiers to tolerate mandatory vaccination, of the ‘duty to evaluate’. This point is not least about the credibility of the judiciary, which may have to accept the accusation that it has been ‘have been had’ [orig. vorgeführt] by politicians with its eyes wide open and that it has given its blessing to this disregard for its authority by a subsequent ruling that avoids the consequences.

---

Bottom Lines

At this point, I’ll spare you the rest until tomorrow (the article is simply too long for email, and it’s perhaps better to take it in in two parts).

So far, what the piece has written, in relatively plain language, is that ‘the Science™’, as assembled by the federal gov’t in the various regulatory bodies (RKI, PEI, STIKO), has been ordered to collaborate on the defrauding of the population on a massive scale unseen in Germany since 1945.

I don’t use these words lightly, for what the Covid charade has been, in effect, is using several wrecking balls and applying it to the structural foundations of the post-WW2 system of order (in a Weberian sense):

• the gov’t orders its notionally ‘independent™’ watchdogs to produce doctored ‘evidence™’

• the judiciary used this ‘evidence™’ to ‘speak law’ (ahem)

• all the while the legislature fails to hold the executive branch to account

‘Collateral damages’ include, in no particular order and with no consideration of the completeness of this listing, the following institutions:

• academia as an evidence-based pursuit of providing concrete data and evidence as a counterweight to whatever blabber is put up in public

• journalism as the oft-cited cantankerous ‘fourth branch’ of gov’t has failed miserably, in part due to selection bias among staffers and, frankly, editorial decisions (not) to cover this or that story

• as a particularly nefarious institution, the ‘intelligence community’ has equally committed intellectual bedwetting and outright treasonous acts by getting in bed with mainstream journalism (see the particularly appalling example of the German snoops here)

• most organised religious institutions also went along with the Covid charade, with the ‘pop-up/walk-in vaccination centre’ in Vienna’s St Stephen’s Cathedral serving as a particularly disgusting, if by far not singular, piece of evidence

This listing could continue for some time, but I think the most nefarious consequence was that ‘ordinary people’ (in C.S. Lewis’ sense in his Paths of Glory) became the monsters of our nightmares.

Husbands turned on their wives (and vice-versa) over simple things, such as the protection of their children.

Friendships were terminated based on the shoddy information coming from those in power and authority.

Friends and neighbours turned on those who, for whatever reason, withstood the agit-prop onslaught.

All the while shops, museums, schools, and even daycare centres as well as playgrounds, rapidly became cesspools of exclusion and, at times, violence.

The simple, if disgusting and appalling, truth of the matter is that the majority of people in any given country had no qualms, no less problems, with behaving like monsters to their family members, neighbours, coworkers, and random acquaintances:

I think we need more than an impartial judicial accounting; we also need a truth and reconciliation commission.

But, fundamentally, we need to regain one of humanity’s defining quality: humility before ourselves and our deeds.

Without an admission of wrongdoing (and its punishment according to the letter of the law), no absolution can be given.

No recognition, no redemption.

It’s that easy.