Covidistan Annals XXVII: Mückstein Actually Answered the Constitutional Court’s Questions, Alright-and legacy media doesn't report accurately on them (surprise /sarcasm)

As a primer, no risk from Covid to our children, 'vaccine' failure (as per Dorabawila et al.) against Omicron, and much more on the ongoing Covid Coup in Austria and elsewhere

In late January, the Austrian Constitutional Court had transmitted a long laundry list of questions to Health Minister Mückstein, enquiring about virtually all things related to the many mandates put into place to fight Sars-Cov-2 and Covid-19. Needless to say, the Court’s enquiry was greeted with a mixture of contempt and disrespect by both state and de facto state media, which is hardly surprising given the fact that these rather uncomfortable questions went for the foundations of the régime’s Covid-19 mandates.

First, a correction. In my last update (28 Feb.), I wrote this:

The Health Ministry hasn’t answered the Constitutional Court’s list of questions (and I think they might even get away with it as most mandates are scheduled to expire on 5 March).

This, it turns out, was not (entirely) correct. In fact, Mückstein had answered the Court’s questions, but ever the sly party hack, the Health Ministry hadn’t done so publicly.

Yes, there were some (pro forma) items in legacy media, e.g., here over at Der Standard, but apart from the fact that they (again) summarised, but didn’t provide the document (which they did with the Court’s questions in the first place: tell, but don’t show, appears the mantra, as e.g., here over at ORF). Back to that Standard piece—do note the time and date:

And compare it to the live ticker: the below piece by Andreas Gstaltmeyr, dated 25 Feb. 2022, published at 12:08, had in excess of 4X the number of comments:

The public’s attention, in other words, was firmly focused on other things.

Now, I’m not inferring intent on part of the pencil pushers over at Der Standard here (also, it’s virtually the same in Covidistan’s other legacy media outlets), but the timing is certainly…interesting. Note, further, that neither the Court’s bespoke website (last update 18 Jan.) nor their spokesperson over at guano island (handle @OeVfGH, I won’t link to bird droppings) mentioned anything about Mückstein’s reply.

‘Alternative’ media, however, did some reporting on the matter, as evidenced by (right-of-centre) outlet unzensuriert.at, which obtained the following statement by a spokesperson working for Mückstein, dated 22 Feb. 2022 (emphasis mine):

The Health Ministry has delivered its response…to the Constitutional Court on time. We are unable to inform you about the contents of the response because access is restricted to concerned parties only.

It is hard to avoid the impression that this is but the latest iteration of the tried and abominable notion that ‘the public doesn’t need to know’. As I’ve emphasised before, with respect to Carl Schmitt who held, about a century ago, the following:

Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.

You know, here’s Ch. I, Art. 1 of the Austrian Federal Constitution, which holds (emphasis mine):

Austria is a democratic republic. Its law emanates from the people. [Österreich ist eine demokratische Republik. Ihr Recht geht vom Volk aus.]

I don’t know about you, but to me this is more than sufficient evidence to take to the streets with placards reading ‘J’accuse!’. Hence, I maintain that my consideration from late November 2021—that ‘Covid-19’ policies constitute a coup d’état against the sovereign people has occurred (my emphasis):

Born (again) in April 1945 in the last days of the ‘Third Reich’, parliamentary government, although already severely under pressure during the past 18-19 [that would be 2+ years now, and counting] months, finally gave way to a new form of governance, (medical) tyranny by executive fiat.

Details of death: neglect by the citizenry, led (if that’s actually the right word) by a coterie of inept, if spine-less tinpot authoritarians who are obviously way too inept to grasp what they are doing.

The above condescension by the Court’s spokesperson is but the latest iteration of the technocratic elites’ war against the common people. Back then, I also maintained, in the closing afterthoughts, that

individual and collective rights, duties, and interest in one’s nation, do appear more warranted and justified today,

to which I’d add, in light of the current situation in Ukraine, that the above-mentioned Covid putsch by leaders all over EUrope is directed against their own people.

A people wronged by their leaders may petition the government for redress of grievance. This has been the ‘normal’ way of conducting governmental business from the time the first organised civilisations emerged some 5,000 years ago.

In our ‘new normal’, this mechanism—a safety valve—is broken.

What follows will, in all likelihood, be more tyranny.

Sidenote: I intended to write this brief opening commentary, as Mückstein’s answer is actually 49 pages long and will result in a longer post in the next couple of days. The document itself was apparently obtained by various ‘alternative’ media outlets, and if you’d like to read it, you may obtain it here or here. What follows here is a brief narrative recap in the by-now familiar Q&A format, but a longer, detailed account will follow before too long.

Mückstein’s Answers

Q: thanks for your opinions on this, I’m more interested in Mückstein’s answers, though. What’s the main take-away?

In short, and I know this might come as a shock to many faithful believers, it’s an admission that the Covid Pandemic was never as dangerous to the health and well-being to the vast majority—which is to say that the government consistently, and repeatedly, lied.

Q: well, that’s nothing new, anything in particular that you’d like to highlight?

Sure, among the most important news is that not a single child under 15 has died of or with Covid-19. Mückstein, Nehammer, most ‘experts’—and let’s not forget about the irresponsible pencil pushers in legacy media here—who warned, typically in the most drastic and shrill tones, of children killing their grandparents and the like, were not only wrong. THEY WERE DEAD WRONG (no pun intended). Furthermore, the data reveals that among young adults (15-20yo), there was but one (!) Covid-related fatality (albeit no information about potential comorbidities and/or pre-existing conditions is provided).

Here’s an additional shout-out at the willful executioners of the régime’s misguided policies in the city-state of Vienna. Their ignorance has cost the esp. the children and teenagers dearly, deriving from insane and baseless mask mandates, a testing regimen (3X per week) that wasn’t supported by any kind of evidence, and the like. The results of this gigantic experiment are in: we failed our children, and I for one call to put those responsible on trial.

Q: well, that’s quite something. I mean, it’s not that we didn’t kinda know that many of these mandates weren’t founded on evidence, but I don’t think we should put politicians on trial right away, that sounds extreme.

In all respect, I disagree: they were privy to these data, the public wasn’t. They knew about this, and they didn’t change course. As a thought-experiment, replace the mandates for children and young adults with a word that should resound more clearly. In the absence of any evidence, this was premeditated abuse of minors, medical, psychological, and emotional. These politicians are psychopaths that should, nay!, MUST stand trial.

Q: I can see the point you’re making. If phrased like this, you’re correct.

Thank you. Let me make another point, however briefly, if I may.

There’s a new pre-print you (Dorabawila et al., see here) on the abysmal record of the currently available injections among NY state residents aged 5-11 and 12-17, respectively. Their findings are (emphases mine):

From 13 Dec. 2021 to 30 Jan. 2022, among 852,384 fully-vaccinated children 12-17 years and 365,502 children 5-11 years, [vaccine efficacy] VE against cases [that would be PCR- and/or rapid antigen-test confirmed presence of Sars-Cov-2] declined from 66%…to 51%…for those 12-17 years and from 68%…12%…for those 5-11 years. [line break inserted]

During the January 24-30 week, VE for children 11 years was 11%…and for those age 12 was 67%…VE against hospitalization declined changed [sic] from 85%…to 73%…for children 12-17 years, and from 100%…to 48%…for those 5-11 years. [line break inserted]

Among children newly fully-vaccinated 13 Dec. 2021 to 2 Jan. 2022, VE against cases within two weeks of full vaccination for children 12-17 years was 76%…and by 28-34 days it was 56%…For children 5-11, VE against cases declined from 65%…12%…by 28-34 days

Why, again, are both political and public health authorities continue to push these apparently irrelevant and above all unnecessary products onto our children? This is the (legal) textbook definition of assault and battery against minors who depend on us adults to protect them. Since at least the emergence and wide-spread diffusion of Omicron, I argue that all matters Covid-19 are no longer a case for experts, medical and otherwise, but for prosecutors and judges.

Remember, one doesn’t count as ‘fully vaccinated’ (i.e., 2 doses) until 14 days after the second injection—now read that final paragraph again: ‘VE against cases [i.e., testing positive for Sars-Cov-2] within two weeks of full vaccination…’ leads to the finding that once the two-week ‘grace period’ was over, VE was already a mere 76% (12-17yo) and barely above a coin toss (56% among 5-11); another 2-3 weeks later, it was 65% among the former and 12% (!) among the latter.

In other words, the injections for esp. 5-11yo basically don’t work after two weeks (if they ‘work’ at-all), and a handful of days later, their effect in terms of testing positive for Sars-Cov-2 is inexistent.

Of all the stupid things we did in the past two years, forcing this useless product onto our children must surely rank among the most disgraceful things. (I’ll spare you the absurd conclusions, as the authors call for ‘alternative vaccine dosing for children and the continued importance [of, sic, doesn’t anyone spell-check these papers?] layered protections, including mask wearing…’).

Q: moving on, anything comparably substantial on the justification of the ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’ in terms of transmission reduction?

Well, Mückstein holds that there’s basically close to zero difference between ‘tested’ and ‘vaccinated’ people with respect to transmission. Only with the passing of time from the tissue sample (48 hours for antigen tests, 72 hours for PCR tests) would there be ‘significantly less risk of transmission emanating from vaccinees’.

In other words, if the reduction of transmission was the aim, Health Minister Mückstein, and contrary to 2+ years of government agit-prop, admitted that the only way to achieve this would be to test everyone, irrespective of injection status.

---

I’ll provide more content before too long, for now this will have to do.