A key author of a seminal paper published to guide the development of PCR tests for COVID (as discussed in this blog post) is Christian Drosten, director of the Institute of Virology at the Charité Hospital in Berlin.
Drosten, as a key expert who strongly influenced lockdown policy in Germany, has been served with cease-and-desist papers on behalf of the owner of a karaoke bar, due to losses sustained following COVID-19 measures. Attorney Dr Reiner Fuellmich (one of the lawyers preparing a class action lawsuit, as mentioned in another post), notified Drosten on 15 December 2020. The letter summarises the glaring flaws in the alleged scientific base for the extreme non-pharmaceutical measures imposed.
“[W]e request that you correct the following statements to those politically responsible and to the public:
- Clarify that there is no reason to believe that SARS-CoV-2 could cause an uncontrollable number of deaths and ICU patients
- Clarify that the case study in the New England Journal of Medicine of March 5, 2020, in which you were involved and which supposedly proves an asymptomatic infection, is based on false data and therefore should have been retracted long ago
- Clarify that a positive PCR test cannot detect active infection and is therefore not suitable to establish a COVID-19 diagnosis on its own
- Clarify that collective restrictions on freedom do not do anything to contain the spread, but are proven to cause massive collateral damage
We also call on you to refrain from your previous statements to the contrary. Politicians must no longer be advised with scientifically inadequate information. And the public must no longer be confused […]”
Stifting Corona Ausschuss
Then there is an extra-parliamentary inquiry underway, headed by Germany’s Corona Committee. On their website, it is stated: “Since mid-July 2020, the Corona Committee has been investigating in live sessions lasting several hours why the federal and state governments have imposed unprecedented restrictions in the context of the coronavirus events and what consequences these have had and are having for people.”
“The coronavirus events in Germany have now almost completely come to a standstill. A large number of studies have now shown that lethality and mortality are flu-like in proportions. The health system was not even remotely overloaded.
“Many fundamental rights were and are still restricted on the basis of urgently forced legal changes and the new applicable law empowers the federal and state governments to restrict civil rights if necessary, even after the end of this pandemic, the democratic processes were shortened and suspended (e.g. postponed elections). Our free democratic structures have been changed. Democracy has suffered great damage. Many people felt and still feel that the measures are degrading and incapacitating.
“The task now is the objective and relentless analysis of the entire process, including the state crisis management of the federal and state governments, among other things in order to be optimally prepared for future pandemics in the sense of a structured pandemic preparedness. This also includes a balance sheet or interim balance sheet of the damage that has occurred, which must be assigned to the virus or the prescribed measures.
About the committee
“Time is of the essence because it can happen at any time that a virus event and / or suboptimal crisis management could lead to potentially avoidable damage and victims.
“We cannot wait for a parliamentary committee of inquiry to be set up, which experience has shown has a longer lead time. Therefore, since mid-July 2020, the Corona Committee has been hearing experts and witnesses on a variety of questions about the virus, crisis management and the consequences in weekly meetings. In particular, the collateral damage of the lockdown, which has not yet been evaluated, was examined in more detail.
“The meetings are chaired by lawyers with experience in litigation. They are streamed live and remain available as a recording. Citizens can participate in the discussion through contributions in the chat and by email. […] A comprehensive final report with transcribed passages from the meetings and a rich collection of documents is in progress.
“All persons involved are committed to the principles of scientific evidence and are willing to conduct an objective discussion on the various topics without any personal, scientific or economic conflicts of interest.”
Fuellmich is one of the attorneys involved in this committee. In one of the sessions, they heard the testimony of a molecular biologist, in the field of molecular cardiovascular research, Vanessa Schmidt Krueger, who was called in to testify as to whether the vaccine manufacturer – BioEnTech, subcontracted by Pfizer – could guarantee that their vaccines are free of RNA impurities. In her opinion the manufacturing process did not guarantee molecular purity, and she commented that in a number of patients or patient categories the vaccine could cause genes to switch off or to be switched off.
The website for the hearings has recordings of the session, mostly in German but some in English, and they also have many supporting documents in English. This is an excellent resource for critiques of the COVID-19 measures and the alleged scientific basis, by very respected and high-ranking scientists around the world, including Stanford professor John P A Ioannidis (whose work is cited in other blog posts).
Then there has been a ruling in the Weimar District Court, which is part of the German federal court system, which has found that the lockdown measures were unconstitutional.