Moral Courage in the 21st Century

Covid and the Media in Germany (pt. 3)

As promised, here is the rest of the open letter (as in pt. 1 and pt. 2, I kept all original linked content and kept light-touch editing for clarity to a minimum, but see the linked original for references):

Questions about Vaccination Efficacy

Data from countries with particularly high vaccination rates show that infections with SARS-CoV-2 are not uncommon, even in fully vaccinated people, but are commonplace. Dr Kobi Haviv, director of Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, says that 85% to 90% of the severely ill patients in his intensive care unit are doubly vaccinated.

Science writes, referring to Israel as a whole, ‘On 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalised with severe or critical Covid-19 illness ... Of these 514 people, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of those vaccinated, 87% were 60 years or older.’ Science quotes an Israeli government advisor who states, ‘One of the big stories out of Israel [is], “Vaccines work, but not well enough”.’

Furthermore, it is now apparent that vaccinated people carry (and spread) as much viral material of the Delta variant as unvaccinated people.

What are the consequences of this data situation in Germany?—A lockdown specifically for the unvaccinated or, to put it somewhat euphemistically: the ‘2G rule’ [the German words for ‘vaccinated’ and ‘tested’ both start with the letter ‘G’, hence this abbreviation]. Society is de facto divided into two classes. The vaccinated get their freedoms back (because they pose no risk to others), the unvaccinated (because they pose a risk to others) have to undergo tests that they have to pay for themselves, and in the event of quarantine they no longer get paid. Employment bans and dismissals based on vaccination status are also no longer ruled out, and healthcare providers could in future impose less favourable rates on the unvaccinated. Why this pressure on the unvaccinated? There is no scientific justification for it, and it is extremely harmful to society.

The antibodies produced by vaccination decrease significantly after a few months. A look at Israel shows that after the second vaccination, the entire population is now receiving the third dose and the fourth has already been announced. Those who do not boost their vaccination after six months are no longer considered immune and lose their ‘Green Pass’ (the digital vaccination card that Israel and the EU have introduced). In the USA, Joe Biden is now talking about Corona boosters every five months. However, Marion Pepper, an immunologist at the University of Washington, questions this strategy. She told the New York Times, ‘the repeated stimulation of the body's defences can also lead to a phenomenon called “immune exhaustion”.’

Little discussed is the fact that natural infection can build up a much more robust immunity. ‘Ultrapotent antibodies’ or a ‘super immunity’ was found in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 last year. These antibodies react with over 20 different viral mutations and persist longer than antibodies produced by the vaccine.

At least [German] Health Minister Jens Spahn has now announced that antibody detection will also be permitted. But in order to be officially considered immune, a vaccination still has to follow. Who understands this logic? A CNN interview with Dr Anthony Fauci, chairman of the National Institutes of Health (the American equivalent of the RKI) makes the absurdity clear. People with natural immunity have so far been ignored by politicians!

I know a doctor who is desperately trying to get an answer from health authorities and the RKI on this issue: One of her patients has an IgG antibody titre of 400 AU/ml, i.e., significantly more than many vaccinated people. The corona infection was more than six months ago, so he is no longer considered immune. The answer she got was: ‘Why don't you vaccinate him?’, which the doctor refuses to do with this titre.

Lack of Basic Journalistic Integrity

The way out of the pandemic propagated by politics and the media turns out to be a permanent vaccination subscription. Scientists who demand a different way of dealing with Corona are still not given an adequate stage by the public media, as the partly defamatory reporting on the #allesaufdentisch campaign has shown again. Instead of discussing the content of the videos with those involved, they have sought out experts to discredit the campaign. In doing so, the public broadcasters are committing exactly the mistake they accuse #allaufdentisch of.

Spiegel journalist Anton Rainer said in an SWR interview about the video campaign that they were not interviews in the classical sense: ‘Basically, you see two people each agreeing with each other.’ I had a stomach-ache after listening to my station’s reporting and was completely irritated by the lack of basic journalistic understanding to also let the other side have their say. I communicated my concerns to the parties involved and the editorial management by email.

A classic saying in conferences is that a topic is ‘already done’. For example, when I raised the very likely under-reporting of vaccine adverse events. Yes, that's right, the issue was discussed with the in-house expert who—unsurprisingly—concluded that there was no under-reporting. ‘The other side’ is mentioned here and there, but it very rarely gets face time in the form of actually talking to the people who take critical viewpoints

Critics Under Pressure

The most outspoken critics have to endure house searches, criminal prosecution, the unilateral withdrawal of bank services, reassignment or dismissal from their jobs, up to and including placement in a psychiatric ward. Even if these are opinions whose positions one does not share—in a state governed by the rule of law, such a thing should not exist.

In the USA, it is already being discussed whether criticism of science should be labelled a ‘hate crime’. The Rockefeller Foundation has offered $13.5 million to censor misinformation in the health sector.

WDR television director Jörg Schönenborn has declared ‘facts are facts, they stand firm’. If that were so, how is it possible that behind closed doors scientists argue incessantly, and even disagree deeply, on some truly fundamental issues? As long as we do not realise this, any assumption of supposed objectivity leads to a dead end. We can only ever approach ‘reality’—and that is only possible in an open discourse of opinions and scientific findings.

What is taking place right now is not a sincere fight against ‘fake news’. Rather, the impression is that any information, evidence or discussion that is contrary to the official narrative is being suppressed.

A recent example is the factual and scientifically transparent video by computer scientist Marcel Barz. In a raw data analysis, Barz is astonished to find that neither the figures on excess mortality nor [hospital] bed occupancy nor the incidence of infection correspond to what we have been reading or hearing from the media and politicians for the last year and a half. He also shows how these data can certainly be used to portray a pandemic, and he explains why he considers this dishonest. The video was deleted by You Tube after 145,000 clicks after three days (and only made accessible again after an objection by Barz and much protest). The reason given: "medical misinformation". Here, too, the question is: who made this decision and on what basis?

The fact-checkers from the [self-declared fact-checkers] Volksverpetzer discredit Marcel Barz as a disinformant. [Fact-checking outlet] Correctiv’s verdict is a bit milder (Barz has responded to it publicly and at length). The expert report prepared for the German Federal Ministry of Health, which shows that the utilisation of hospitals in 2020 by Covid 19 patients was a mere 2%, proves him right. Barz contacted the media with his analysis, but he failed to get any attention. In a functional discourse, our media would invite him into the fray.

Millions of times content on Corona issues is now deleted, as journalist Laurie Clarke shows in the British Medical Journal. Facebook and Co. are private companies and can therefore decide what is published on their platforms. But do they also get to control the discourse?

Public service broadcasting could provide an important balance by ensuring an open exchange of views. Regrettably, there is no such thing!

Digital Vaccination Passports and Surveillance

The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations designed and funded the WHO guidelines for digital vaccination cards. They are now being introduced worldwide. Only with them should public life be possible - whether it is riding a tram, drinking a cup of coffee, or seeking medical treatment. An example from France shows that this digital ID card should remain in place even after the pandemic is over. MP Emanuelle Ménard has called for the following addition to the text of the law: The digital vaccination card ‘ends when the spread of the virus no longer poses a sufficient risk to justify its use’. Her amendment was rejected. This makes the step towards global population control or even a surveillance state through projects like ID2020 very small.

Australia is now testing a facial recognition app to ensure that people in quarantine stay at home. Israel is using electronic wristbands. In one Italian city, drones are being tested to measure the temperature of beachgoers, and in France, the law is being changed to make drone surveillance possible on a large scale.

All these issues need an intensive and critical exchange within society. But it is not sufficiently covered by our broadcasters and was not a campaign issue [in the recent German elections].

Closing the Overton Window

The way the perspective of Overton window is narrowed is characteristic of the ‘gatekeepers of information’. A current example is provided by [comedian] Jan Böhmermann with his demand that the virologist Hendrik Streeck and Professor Alexander S. Kekulé no longer be given a stage because they are not competent.

Apart from the fact that the two doctors have extremely respectable CVs, Böhmermann has thus readjusted the blinders. Are people who present their criticism of the government's course with kid gloves now not even to be heard?

The restriction of debate has progressed to such an extent that on several occasions during the broadcast of parliamentary debates of the Landtag, the Bavarian Broadcasting Corporation did not broadcast the speeches of MPs who were critical of the measures.

Is this the public broadcaster's new understanding of democracy? Alternative media platforms flourish first and foremost because the established ones no longer fulfil their tasks as a democratic corrective.

Something Has Gone Terribly Wrong

For a long time, I could say with pride and pleasure that I work for a public broadcaster. A lot of outstanding research, formats and content come from ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio. The quality standards are extremely high, and thousands of employees do excellent work even under increased pressure and cost-cutting measures. But something has gone wrong with Corona. Suddenly I perceive tunnel vision and blinders and a supposed consensus that is no longer questioned.

The Austrian broadcaster Servus TV shows that it is possible to do things differently. In the programme ‘Corona-Quartett’ / ‘Talk im Hanger 7’ supporters and critics alike have their say. Why should this not be possible on German television? ‘You can’t give a stage to every nutcase’, is the quick answer. The false equivalence, that both serious as well as frivolous opinions must not be heard in equal measure, has to be avoided, for this is a killer argument that is also unscientific. The basic principle of science is to doubt, to question, to verify. If this no longer takes place, science becomes a religion.

Yes, there is indeed a false equivalence. It is the blind spot that has entered our minds that no longer allows for truthful debate. We throw apparent facts around our ears but can no longer listen to each other. Contempt takes the place of understanding, fighting the other opinion replaces tolerance. Basic values of our society are cavalierly jettisoned. Here they say: people who don't want to be vaccinated are stupid, there they say: ‘Shame on the sleeping sheep’.

While we argue, we don’t notice that the world around us is changing at breakneck speed. Virtually all areas of our lives are undergoing transformation. How we move forward depends largely on our capacity for cooperation, compassion and awareness of ourselves and our words and actions. For our mental health, we would do well to open up the debate space—with mindfulness, respect and understanding of different perspectives.

Writing these lines makes me feel like a heretic; someone committing treason and facing punishment. Perhaps it is not so. Maybe I am not risking my job with this, and freedom of expression and pluralism are not at risk. I very much hope so and look forward to a constructive exchange with colleagues.

Ole Skambraks.

About the author: Ole Skambraks, born in 1979, studied political science and French at Queen Mary University, London, and media management at ESCP Business School, Paris. He was a presenter, reporter and writer at Radio France Internationale, online editor and community manager at cafebabel.com, programme manager of the morning show at MDR Sputnik and editor at WDR Funkhaus Europa / Cosmo. He currently works as an editor in programme management/sound design at SWR2.