Germany's PEI Admits it Can't Assess Vaxx Injuries

And thus the charade known as 'public health™' will end: with regulators admitting to be incompetent, yet these agencies continue to receive funding

Oh my, today’s piece shows that stereotypes about ze Germans being the most orderly and organised people may have been a wee bit overblown.

Moreover, hidden in the below piece, a major f***-up is admitted, and, as was to be expected, the intrepid journo™ in question refuses to follow-up on it.

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

Why the Paul Ehrlich Institute Has Still Not Analysed the Data from Vaccinated Patients

The federal authority responsible for vaccine monitoring should have presented comprehensive studies on the safety of coronavirus vaccines based on patient data—but where are they?

By Mathias Rücker, Berliner Zeitung, 20 Dec. 2024 [source; archived]

It is very likely that corona vaccines help to prevent long-term consequences [and thus the lying begins: journo™ Rücker just said there are no data…]. A whole series of studies have now come to this conclusion, and this is also the result of a meta-analysis published a few days ago in the Journal of Infection [here, journo™ Rücker also bends the truth, as that paper is a meta-review of ‘25 studies on the relationship between vaccination and long COVID’—by not mentioning this, you may have thought ‘long-term consequences’ would be something else, didn’t you? I’ve skimmed the paper, but it’s another model, and I ‘presume’ this is because they all lack data?].

Health scientists and pathologists from the Chinese University of Hong Kong analysed [‘data from 25’] observational studies on the connection between vaccinations and Long Covid symptoms [you really thought these people would have done some serious work, didn’t you?]. Those who had been vaccinated twice before a coronavirus infection had a 24% lower risk of long-term symptoms. A single vaccination after a Covid infection was still associated with a 15% lower risk of Long Covid [here’s from the study’s interpretation: ‘Our study suggests that 2-dose pre-COVID vaccination and 1-dose post-COVID vaccination are associated with a lower risk of long COVID. Since long COVID reduces quality of life substantially, vaccination could be a possible measure to maintain quality of life by partially protecting against long COVID.’—if you have Long Covid, you will now be offered another jab; there are no differentiations made between what poison/death juices were used, so, I suppose it’s a bit like Russian roulette as we don’t know which of these juices, in the words of the authors, ‘might have a protective effect against long COVID’]

Poor Data Situation

Despite [sic] such findings, concerns about the negative effects of vaccination persist [gee, I wonder why…]. The fact that there are side effects, including severe ones, is completely undisputed [German Health Minister Lauterbach denied any side effects until 2023]. In addition, however, people associate the coronavirus vaccine with a variety of secondary illnesses, including sudden deaths that are allegedly occurring in series. There is no evidence or plausibility to this this [see, don’t trust your lying eyes, despite, e.g., 23 dead babies (aged 0-2) in 2021 who weren’t even ‘eligible’ for these modRNA poison/death juices, as per the European Medicines Agency’s EUDRA Vigilance database (the EU’s VAERS): would you, Mr. Rücker, look into their parents’ eyes and repeat your comment? You disgust me, Mr. Rücker]

However, the partially poor data situation also opens up room for such theories [sic]. Particularly when using a new technology such as mRNA vaccines, it would have been helpful to track the effects of the vaccines with specific data from the largest possible number of people. This is exactly what the federal authority responsible for vaccine monitoring, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), should have done long ago. However, it has still not submitted the planned studies [if a federal agency was supposed to follow the law but didn’t, what shall be done? I have an idea: put the agency heads on trial and send all employees on leave without pay until said trial is done] Why? The Berliner Zeitung went in search of clues [oh, goodie, let’s see what these inttrepid ‘jounos™’ found out].

Data Should Be Available 4 Years After the Law was Amended

The Infection Protection Act leaves no doubt as to how specific the analyses were intended to be [so, the law isn’t the problem here]. In Section 13, it obliges the Associations of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians [orig. Kassenärztlichen Vereinigungen, or KV] to regularly transmit extensive data to the PEI for ‘monitoring the safety of vaccines (pharmacovigilance)’. Among other things, the federal agency should receive the following information on vaccinated persons under patient pseudonyms: age and sex, date of vaccination, batch of vaccine used, diagnoses made by a doctor.

This has been the law since November 2020, which initially also obliged vaccination centres to submit data to the PEI. Coronavirus vaccination in Germany began at the end of December 2020, and four years have passed since then—but no evaluation has yet been made [for a comparison of ‘rules for thee, but not for me’ at play here, imagine not paying taxes for four years…].

The data from pop-up vaccination centres from the early days of the vaccination campaign are apparently available at the PEI [so, let’s see their excuses, shall we?]. It is understandable that this has taken some time: at the beginning of the campaign, mass vaccinations were carried out in hastily set up pop-up centres, where doctors and staff usually wrote down by hand who received which vaccine and when—sometimes in better, sometimes in less legible writing, typos not excluded [you’re kidding me, right? I mean, that data contains names plus age and sex, date of vaccination, batch of vaccine used, diagnoses (rendered in ICD codes)]. The data from the associations of statutory health insurance physicians, which is based on digitally recorded information from the practices, is more structured.

To date, the PEI has published a statement from 2022 on its website. In it, the Institute ‘welcomes’ the possibility of analysing CT data. It goes on to say:

In the future, these data will be able to contribute to broadening the database for pharmacovigilance. However, this requires extensive preparatory work [no kidding].

This is because, on the one hand, ‘data protection must be guaranteed’ and, on the other, the workload for the KVs must be limited [I call BS, because we already read that the PEI has said data since 2022, yet the ‘extensive preparatory work’ has not been carried out/completed to date].

There is no clear answer as to why the data transmission required by law in 2020 has not progressed beyond the status of ‘preliminary work’ within four years. When asked by the Berliner Zeitung, the PEI explained: ‘After initial technical and data protection challenges, the transmission of the KV data records is now taking place on an ongoing basis’—these are transmitted by the KVs to the PEI via the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) [whose head admitted under oath to ‘taking orders’ from politicos™]. So far, only individual data records have apparently arrived there, which serve to ‘obtain an overview of the structure of this data’ [I don’t know what that means; we know what said data contains, so, what’s your excuse?]. According to the authority, the current plan is to ‘receive the data from all 17 associations of statutory health insurance physicians from the RKI by the end of 2024’. Only then will a ‘robust analysis’ be possible. It remains to be seen how long this will take.

Health Insurance Companies Refused to Provide Data

But analysing the health insurance data is only one thing. In 2020, the PEI was already planning a ‘safety study for COVID-19 vaccines based on anonymised health insurance data’, for which the Federal Ministry of Health had pledged the necessary funds. The PEI statement from 2022 states without further explanation:

The Paul Ehrlich Institute has requested the data. So far, these data has not yet been made available to the Paul Ehrlich Institute by the health insurance funds [for which Johnny Q. Public is obliged by law to pay taxes to; find the mistake here]

When asked, the PEI specified that it had written to ‘the four major health insurance companies’—i.e. Techniker, DAK, Barmer and AOK—for the first time on 21 May 2021 ‘with the request to participate in the RiCO study’. The abbreviation RiCO stands for ‘Risk Evaluation of Covid-19 Vaccines’, the name of the planned data analysis. The aim of RiCO is to ‘further investigate potential adverse drug reactions of Covid-19 vaccines’, explained State Secretary for Health Edgar Franke in the Bundestag last October.

The PEI further explains the coordination with the health insurance funds: ‘The project was presented and discussed in several virtual meetings.’ The Institute left open the reasons why the health insurance funds have not yet provided any data to the authority [again, try not paying taxes or explain the absence of a driver’s licence when a cop pulls you over with such an answer].

The information provided by Techniker Krankenkasse in response to an enquiry by Berliner Zeitung points to disagreements. ‘In the course of the exchange of content between the parties involved, the feasibility of the project was examined from various perspectives in several meetings’, said a Techniker Krankenkasse spokesperson. ‘However, it was not possible to find a common line regarding the realisability of the project. As a result, the project could not be realised.’

Data-based Answers on Adverse Effects ‘currently not possible’

The AOK-Bundesverband also confirms that it has not provided any data to the PEI—and describes the processes in even more detail. Together with other health insurance funds and research institutions, it has already submitted a proposal for a monitoring system to the Federal Ministry of Health several times since 2021, which ‘could have been used to answer questions about the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines quickly and with little effort’. According to the proposal, it should not have been the health insurance funds that provided data to the authorities, but the health insurance funds themselves would have received ‘insurance-related information on the vaccination of their insured persons’. However, the proposal was ‘not taken up’ by the ministry and it did not agree to an ‘exchange of information’—instead, it commissioned the PEI with the RiCO study [I’ll go out on a limb here with my tinfoil hat-wearer’s ‘conspiracy theory’: the powers-that-be didn’t want to let health insurance companies do that analysis as the former couldn’t control what kind of results the latter might produce; put differently, insurance companies may have spilled the beans about the modRNA poison/death juice by, let’s be generous, mid-January 2021 when there were dozens of dead; change my mind]

Experts from the health insurance funds were involved in the preparations as consultants. According to the AOK spokesperson, one problem could not be solved: the anonymised data of the vaccinated persons could not be linked to the health insurance companies’ billing data without errors. [that should give you the chills: that is literally what these health insurance companies are supposed to do to assess your claims—I consider this the main red flag here, with the Covid-19 (modRNA) poison/death juices being the incidental roadkill]. However, according to the spokesperson, this would have been ‘a mandatory requirement’ [gee, I hope that you insurance companies figure out how to assess billing data prior to payouts at some point in the future; by the way, has this been a problem before the Covid poison/death juices were rolled out?]

The data situation is somewhat chaotic: the coronavirus vaccines have only been covered by health insurance since April 2023, before that they were provided by the federal government [ah, the gov’t paid out of (German taxpayer’s) pockets]. However, even since then, it is not only the statutory health insurance doctors who carry out vaccinations, but also pharmacies or company doctors. The health insurance funds therefore still do not know ‘which of their policyholders have been vaccinated against coronavirus and when with which active ingredient’, said the spokesperson for the AOK federal association:

From our point of view, it is very regrettable that it does not currently seem possible to provide data-based answers to questions about vaccination side effects for all vaccinated persons in Germany.

For the same reasons, a Barmer spokesperson emphasised: ‘It is no longer possible to retroactively merge the vaccination data with the insured persons’ data.’ [we’ll never find out how dangerous these poison/death juices are; you can try to convince me, but even though I’m a huge fan of Occam’s Razor and find plenty of incredibly stupid things and people in this fiasco, given the fact that these things pile up (compound) for years already, it’s getting ever harder to avoid the question: looks like intent to me]

The PEI responded to this by initially setting up a ‘feasibility study’ instead of the originally planned RiCO project. According to the authority, the evaluation is still ongoing: ‘Publication of the results, initially on a pre-print server (i.e., still without independent review; editor’s note), is expected in spring 2025.’ Meaning as much as that: In the meantime, the question is no longer when the data from the vaccinated people will be analysed, but whether it will happen at all.

---

Bottom Lines

This was painful, eh?

My best guess is that anyone who still professes his or her faith in these poison/death juices should be directed to the above piece and asked: ‘nice try, got any data for your claim?’

Ze Germans surely don’t.

And I’ll propose that if ze Germans failed in this, no-one else has such a study.

I’ve mentioned this before: we’re flying blind, and the pilots are both wilfully blind and intentionally stupid (so they can claim ‘plausible deniability’).

This won’t end well, for we can presume that level of dishonesty and gaslighting to exist elsewhere in public and private bureaucracies.