Moral Courage in the 21st Century

Covid and the Media in Germany (pt. 2)

As promised, here is the rest of the open letter (as in pt. 1, I kept all original linked content and kept light-touch editing for clarity to a minimum, but see the linked original for references):

‘Gain of Function’ and ‘Lab Leak’

To date, I have not heard or read anything substantial about ‘gain of function research’, by which is meant research to render viruses more dangerous, which was carried out at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and financed by the USA. This research takes place in so-called P4 laboratories, where work has been going on for decades on how viruses found in the animal kingdom can be altered in such a way that they also become dangerous for humans. ARD and ZDF have so far avoided this topic--even though there is a clear need for discussion. A first question to be discussed could be, for example: Do we as a society want such research?

There are now numerous reports on the ‘lab leak theory’, i.e. the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory. It must be mentioned that this topic was immediately branded as a conspiracy theory last year. Alternative media that followed up on this lead were banned from social networks like YouTube and Twitter and the bespoke information was censored. Scientists who voiced this thesis were massively attacked. Today, the ‘lab leak theory’ is at least as plausible as transmission by a bat. The American investigative journalist Paul Thacker has published the results of his meticulous research in the British Medical Journal. On this matter, Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser, Professor of Health Sciences at the University of Hamburg, writes:

Step by step, [Thacker] shows how operators of an American laboratory group deliberately develop a conspiracy theory to disguise their laboratory accident in Wuhan as a conspiracy. This myth is supported by renowned journals such as the Lancet. Science journalists and fact-checking service providers adopt the information unquestioningly. The scientists involved remain silent for fear of losing prestige and research funding. Facebook blocked reports questioning the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 for almost a year. Should the laboratory accident thesis be confirmed, ZDF and other media would have defended conspiracy myths.

Ivermectin and Alternatives to Vaccination

It has also been apparent for months that there are effective and inexpensive treatments for Covid-19 that should not be used. The data on this is clear. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these remedies are indicative of the state of the medical establishment. Hydroxychloroquine has been known for decades and has been used millions of times for malaria and rheumatic diseases. Last year, it was suddenly declared dangerous. President Donald Trump's statement that hydroxychloroquine was a ‘game changer’ did the rest to discredit it. Political rhetoric no longer allowed for a scientific debate on HCQ.

The catastrophic situation in India due to the spread of the Delta variant was widely reported by all media in the spring (at that time there was still talk of the Indian variant of the virus). The fact that India brought the situation under control relatively quickly and that Ivermectin played a decisive role in this in large states such as Uttar Pradesh, on the other hand, was no longer deemed newsworthy. The WHO has in fact praised the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh for its corona policy, but without mentioning Ivermectin. The vaccination rate in Uttar Pradesh is below 10%.

Ivermectin also has provisional approval in the Czech Republic and Slovakia for the treatment of Covid-19 patients. At least MDR reported on this, albeit with a negative connotation.

In the list of possible drugs from Bayerischer Rundfunk, Ivermectin is not even mentioned, and as regards Hydroxychloroquine, only negative results and no positive studies are cited.

The molecule Clofoctol also showed good efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in laboratory tests in the summer of 2020. Until 2005, the antibiotic was on marketed in France and Italy under the names Octofene and Gramplus. The Institut Pasteur in Lille was repeatedly prevented by the French authorities from carrying out a trial with Covid-19 patients. After several attempts, the first patient was recruited for the trial at the beginning of September.

Why are the health authorities so vehemently resisting treatments that would have been available at the beginning of the pandemic? Here I would have liked to see investigative research by ARD! It should also be mentioned that the new Corona vaccines could only receive emergency approval because there was no officially approved treatment for SARS-CoV-2.

It is not my intention to promote a miracle cure for Covid-19. I want to point out facts that have not received the attention they deserve. From the beginning, the prevailing public opinion was that only vaccination could provide a remedy. At times, the WHO even went so far as to change the definition of ‘herd immunity’ to the effect that it can only be acquired through vaccination and no longer through prior infection, as was the case in the past.

But what if the path taken is a dead end?

To be continued in pt. 3.