Ich weiß nicht, warum Wikipedia darauf verzweigt. Der Wikipedia-Autor BandidoX scheint nicht sehr sorgfältig zu arbeiten. Vielleicht suchen Sie Angaben zu meiner Person oder meiner Erkrankung, zu denen ich hier verlinke.
Because more than 80% of adults are now vaccinated at least twice, an effective vaccine should show a result in the statistics. However, the numbers in 2021 with vaccination were higher than in
2020 without vaccination. The vaccine can therefore have no statistically recognizable effect.
On January 4th, 2022, I filed a lawsuit against the unequal treatment of those who had recovered compared to those who had been vaccinated at the administrative court in Darmstadt. Here is the text of the lawsuit.
The statement of claim is preceded by the following theses:
1) In the event of unequal treatment, the state bears the burden of proof that there is an unequal situation that may be treated unequally. In view of the evidence presented here, it cannot be assumed that this evidence could succeed.
2) An evaluation of the figures published by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) shows that the vaccination may have little or no effect below a statistical abnormality.
a) The Robert Koch Institute also relativizes its earlier statements
b) The current figures do not show any effect
c) There is no negative correlation between vaccinations and case numbers
3) The lack of effectiveness can also be explained medically.
4) Natural immunization after a disease has been overcome is effective and it lasts for at least a year.
5) The fact that those who have recovered are worse off than those who have been vaccinated is not objectively justified because every vaccination is associated with health risks, whereas the infection that has survived is not.
Regarding 1): There is no need for further explanations.
The plaintiff assumes that the defendant did not process the objection because he cannot provide this evidence and wanted to protect the chance that the plaintiff may not have been aware of the possibility of an action for failure to act. So he himself assumed that his decision was unconstitutional.
Regarding 2): An evaluation of the numbers shows that the vaccination may have little or no effect below a statistical abnormality.
a) The Robert Koch Institute also relativizes its earlier statements
On the website of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) the following sentence was found on November 2nd, 2021: "To what extent the vaccination reduces the transmission of the virus cannot currently be precisely quantified." (https: // www. rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/COVID-Impfen/FAQ_Transmission. html) On August 27, 2021, the RKI wrote on the same page: “Further data show that even in people who become PCR-positive despite being vaccinated, the viral load is significant is reduced. ”On November 1st, the page read:“ From a public health point of view, the risk of virus transmission appears to be reduced by vaccination to such an extent that vaccinated persons no longer play an essential role in the epidemiology of the disease. ”This sentence was deleted on November 2nd, 21st without replacement. This also applies to the following statements:
"The vaccination has a high protective effect (at least 80%) against severe COVID-19, regardless of the vaccine used (Comirnaty from BioNTech / Pfizer, Spikevax from Moderna, Vaxzevria from AstraZeneca)." and
"The current data also shows that vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine as well as with mRNA vaccines leads to a significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic + asymptomatic) (protective effect about 80-90% after the 2nd . Vaccine dose). "
Instead, it now says on the website:
"It must be assumed, however, that people after contact with SARS-CoV-2 will become PCR-positive despite being vaccinated and will also excrete infectious viruses." (which is mostly mild) or develop no symptoms at all. "
The authority then writes: "In addition, the vaccination protection decreases over time and the probability of becoming PCR-positive despite the vaccination increases." In the meantime, a booster vaccination is recommended after 6 months, which should define the period of decrease.
It should therefore be noted that the Robert Koch Institute, as an authority subordinate to the Federal Ministry of Health, made its original statements that “Vaccinated persons no longer play an essential role in the epidemiology of the disease” and “The vaccination has a high protective effect (at least 80%) against serious problems COVID-19 “is no longer maintained.
This assessment is also supported by a study by Peter Nordström, Marcel Ballin and Anna Nordström from the University of Umeå in Sweden, who evaluated data from 1,684,958 cases. They come to the conclusion: “This study showed a progressive waning in vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 through 9 months of follow-up. Following the peak during the first month after vaccination, effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 declined to about 30% and 60% respectively, after 6 months. From 7 months and onwards, no effectiveness of BNT162b2 could be detected." (Peter Nordström, Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination against risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death up to 9 months: a Swedish total-population cohort study, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949410, page 11)
However, there is no objective reason for poor treatment of those who have been read if they have been shown to have been immunized for more than 12 months and they only get a benefit from the SchAusnahmV of 6 months, but vaccinated persons only have an immunization of a maximum of 6 months and they receive a discount of 12 months.
If vaccinated people "get sick without symptoms" so that, according to the prevailing teaching, they can pass on the virus and go to places without tests where those who have not been vaccinated have to be tested, those who have not been vaccinated would therefore be less of a risk for others than those who have not been vaccinated. Objective reasons for privileging vaccinated people over those who have not been vaccinated or those who have recovered cannot be identified.
b) The current figures do not show any effect
The current statistics also speak for the unsuitability of the vaccination for the purpose of containing Covid-19 diseases. Despite a vaccination quota of 87.2% in the age group 60+ and 79.0% of the 18-59 year olds (https://impfdashboard.de/ on December 31, 21), neither a decrease in new infections nor in deaths by a significant amount is discernible . The course of new infections and deaths compared to the previous year according to the daily situation reports of the RKI can be shown with the following graphics, whereby moving 7-day averages were used to avoid zigzag lines:
Proof: The figures on which the graphics are based can be found in Appendix B, Part 1.
The more moderate increase in deaths is likely to have played a role in the fact that 68.4% of deaths in 2020 affected people 80 and over and 28.2% residents of old people's and nursing homes, although these groups only affected around 7 and 1% of the Make up the population. The decline in the proportion of the 80+ group to 63% in 2021 cannot be attributed to the vaccination, because this group was vaccinated at the beginning of the year (the effect should have disappeared after 6 months) and the gap only builds from December. It must have played a role that the weakest in this age group could have died as early as 2020 after the flu epidemics did not occur in 2019 and 2020, which would also have caused significant fatalities, and then no longer burdened the statistics in 2021. After the two flu-free years, there must have been a large number of weak old people in April 2020 for whom any infection, regardless of the virus, would have been a life-threatening situation.
A breakdown of the daily data by age group was set by the RKI on September 12th, 2020 with the reason that there would no longer be any relevant shifts between the age groups. However, this assumption was not correct. Even so, daily reporting has not resumed and only weekly breakdowns are possible.
In the case of new infections, hospitalizations and deaths, different age groups are formed in the various statistics. In order to get comparable data for this statement of claim, the groups below 60 (<60), 60-79 and 80+ (80+) were formed, which could be calculated from all statistics by adding them up.
In terms of new infections, significantly higher numbers were observed in all three age groups in 2021 with vaccination than in 2020, when there were no vaccinations.
The extreme increase took place in the 42nd calendar week, when the 18-59 year olds were already more than 72% double vaccinated.
A similar development can be observed in the age group 60-79. The increase is only lower in people 80 and over. At the time of the sharp increase in the 42nd calendar week, over 85% of the groups aged 60 and over had been vaccinated twice.
Proof: The figures on which the graphics are based can be found in Appendix B, Part 2.
For hospitalizations, the data in 2021 are close to the values of the previous year, but slightly higher. In the summer of 2021, however, there was an increase in hospitalizations, while the numbers here in 2020 were very low.
Not surprisingly, hospital admissions are much higher for people aged 80 and over than for younger people.
Proof: The figures on which the graphics are based can be found in Appendix B, Part 3.
In cases of deaths, too, the numbers from 2021 are above those of the previous year.
Proof: The figures on which the graphics are based can be found in Appendix B, Part 4.
Prof. Dr. Dr. Harald Walach, who used the 8 above graphics for a publication on his website https://harald-walach.de/2021/12/21/intensivdienstleistungen-impfpflicht-und-mehr/, came to the following assessment:
"From my point of view there are three interpretations for all of these data and analyzes and none is flattering for the vaccination:
1. The vaccination prevents infections, but only for a short time. The decline in the number of infections at the beginning of 2021 could be interpreted as when infections were still falling in winter (Figure 6, blue curve). But the fact that they then rose again in May, where the infections normally receded, for example in the year before, does not fit the picture. That means: their effect is very limited.
2. Vaccination only prevents cases that are due to the virus variant for which it was originally designed. If a new one comes, the vaccination protection is gone. The solution that you need a new vaccine for every new variant, two to five times a year, may be a good idea for the industry that manufactures the substances because it has built a cash machine with it. But it's a very bad idea for those getting the vaccines because with each vaccination the risk of autoimmune-induced derailment increases (see above).
3. Vaccination even helps to increase sensitivity when a new virus variant is on the march. It may even contribute to the fact that more aggressive virus strains develop through mutation, as some speculate [28, 33, 34], because this exerts higher evolutionary pressure on the virus. Because with every viral replication in an organism there are always a few bad copies. If these are overlooked by an immune system that has been vaccinated, which has set the system to a very close detection of virus characteristics, then they can continue to multiply and the vaccinated person becomes a weak excretor of a vaccine-resistant variant, which can then spread. With a natural immunity that provides much broader detection of viral landscapes, this would not happen so easily.
4. The vaccinations cause more damage than they are good because of a security signal that has not yet been recognized, or in any case more than we think.
Neither of these four options is particularly flattering to be vaccinated. "
24. Sagripanti J-L, Aquilano DR. Progression of COVID-19 under the highly restrictive measures imposed in Argentina. Journal of Public Health Research. 2021. doi: 10.4081 / jphr.2021.2490.
28. Riemersma KK, Grogan BE, Kita-Yarbro A, Halfmann PJ, Segaloff HE, Kocharian A, et al. Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination. medRxiv. 2021: 2021.07.31.21261387. doi: 10.1101 / 2021.07.31.21261387.
29. Read AF, Baigent SJ, Powers C, Kgosana LB, Blackwell L, Smith LP, et al. Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. PLOS Biology. 2015; 13 (7): e1002198. doi: 10.1371 / journal.pbio.1002198.
Evidence: The full text is attached as Annex B, Part 7.
Dr. A. Weber comes in his analysis “17 statistical abnormalities in death data for Germany” on https://reitschuster.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Analyse_Sterbedaten _20_21.pdf in his statement “14. The vaccination effect seems to wane quickly ”on the statement:“ In all working groups (age groups, plaintiff's note) from 40, the number of deaths rose sharply again in the fourth wave. These age groups have high vaccination rates. "
Evidence: The full text is attached as Appendix B, Part 9.
For months, politicians have been declaring that almost all of the corona patients in the intensive care units have not been vaccinated. In the expert hearing in the German Bundestag on the amendment to the Infection Protection Act on November 15, 21, the chairman of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive and Emergency Medicine answered. V. (DIVI), Prof. Dr. Gernot Marx on the question of how many corona patients were vaccinated and not vaccinated in the intensive care unit: "Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question because we have not yet recorded which patients in the intensive care unit are vaccinated and not vaccinated. The question is right and important. As DIVI, we have now made appropriate preparations with the RKI so that we can capture this important information very quickly, but we do not have it at hand yet, so unfortunately I cannot answer the question. "
So this statement of politics cannot be proven either.
However, it can be stated that the intensive care units will be occupied more with Covid 19 patients in 2021 after the start of the vaccinations than in 2020 without vaccination. The following graphics could be created from the figures of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive and Emergency Medicine e.V. (DIVI); A comparison by age group is not possible due to the lack of itemized comparative figures from the previous year and therefore a breakdown is not useful:
The percentage load of the intensive care units with Covid-19 patients in 2021 was never below that of 2020. However, it must be mentioned that the capacities of the intensive care units in German hospitals were greatly reduced from the beginning of August 2020, which is a percentage increase even with the same numbers would result. Therefore, a comparison of the absolute numbers should be added at this point:
In absolute numbers in 2021 with vaccination are mostly at the level of 2020 without vaccination, but higher in spring and late summer. Here, too, the statistics do not show any positive effects of the vaccinations.
Proof: The figures on which the graphics are based can be found in Appendix B, Part 8.
The above graphics, the database of which is documented in Appendix B, shows that, despite the vaccination campaign that started on December 27, 2020, there has been no improvement in the situation. This is a strong indication of the relative ineffectiveness of the vaccinations.
c) There is no negative correlation between vaccinations and case numbers
A correlation coefficient indicates on a scale from -1 to +1 whether there is a statistical connection between two developments. A negative correlation with a coefficient of <1 means that one development increases while the other decreases. Which development depends on which one cannot, however, be determined from this. With a higher vaccination rate, fewer new infections, hospitalizations and deaths would have been expected.
With a correlation coefficient of -0.2999 to +0.2999, no proof of a statistical connection is assumed. Values of 0.3000-0.4999 indicate a weak relationship, 0.5000-0.7999 a clear relationship, and from 0.8000 a clear relationship. A statistical relationship suggests a causal relationship. However, this presumption can in principle also be refuted with another statement.
In the text "The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality", Prof. Dr. Rolf Steyer and Dr. Gregor Kappler from the University of Jena on November 16, 2021 on the following summary:
The correlation between excess mortality in the federal states and their vaccination rate when weighted with the relative number of inhabitants of the federal state is 0.31. This number is astonishingly high and would be negative if vaccination were to reduce mortality. For the period under review (week 36 to week 40, 2021), the following applies: the higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality. In view of the upcoming political measures aimed at containing the virus, this number is worrying and requires explanation if one wishes to take further political measures with the aim of increasing the vaccination rate.
The authors only wanted to share the findings as a first interim result, which was not intended for publication. The text was then accidentally passed on and made it onto the Internet. The authors told the plaintiff that the figures needed to be verified more carefully, but that they were correct. It was not the intent of the authors to suggest a causal link between vaccinations and the rise in deaths. According to Steyer and Kappler, however, it should be noted that a correlation of approx. -0.5 (more vaccination => less disease, i.e. negative correlation) would be necessary for statistical proof of the effectiveness of the vaccination campaign, and that +0.31 of this is very far away.
Proof: The entire text is attached as Annex B, Part 5.
These findings can also be substantiated with an international comparison, which does not have the weak point of the data from only 16 federal states (40-50 would be solid) in view of the comparison of data from 190 countries.
Correlations were also calculated from data from the Resource Center of the Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore / USA) on December 2nd, 21st and December 18th, 21st on https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. Repeating the calculation 16 days later shows that this is not a random result. When comparing the data from 190 countries, the following rank correlation coefficients in relation to the vaccinations per 100,000 inhabitants result:
New infections in the last 28 days: + 0.54 + 0.53
Deaths in the last 28 days: + 0.35 + 0.38
total reported cases: + 0.58 + 0.60
total reported deaths: + 0.42 + 0.43
total New infections 28 days ago: + 0.58 + 0.58
total deaths before 28 days: + 0.42 + 0.42
(each in relation to the population) (rounded to two digits)
Here, too, a correlation of -0.5 (on a scale from -1.0 to +1.0) would have been necessary for reliable statistical proof of the effectiveness of the vaccinations. The determined values of up to +0.58 on 02.21. or 0.60 on December 18. however, show a clear connection that more vaccinations are likely to lead to more infections and more deaths. With the values determined here, the statement made by politicians and the pharmaceutical industry that vaccination is an effective protection against Covid 19 disease can be viewed as refuted.
Proof: The data used are attached as Annex B, Part 6.
Regarding 3): The lack of effectiveness can also be explained medically:
The very well-founded assumption that the previous vaccination campaign as a whole had no statistically significant effect can also be explained medically.
The website https://krebspatientenadvokatfoundation.com/sucharit-bhakdi-covid-19-imichtung-ist-die-groesste-bedrohung-der-die-menschheit-je-ausetzt-war/ quotes Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi (specialist in microbiology and infection epidemiology, former director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz). The content of this website is reproduced in full in Annex A, Part 2. From this, two paragraphs are cited at this point:
There are two main defense mechanisms against viral infections. One is the antibodies which, when present, can prevent the virus from entering our cells. These are the so-called neutralizing antibodies that are supposed to be generated by the vaccination.
However, the antibodies are not in the place where they are needed, namely on the surface of the airway epithelium. They are in the blood, but not on the surface of the epithelium where the virus arrives. Then the second arm of the immune defense comes into play, and that is the lymphocytes.
Proof: Appendix A, Part 2
If the antibodies produced after vaccination are not in the place where they are needed, the statistically observed low effect is plausible.
On December 14, 2021, Prof. Bhakdi and Prof. Buckhardt submitted a report in English on the consequences of the use of gene-based COVID-19 vaccines, which is attached with a German translation as Annex A, Part 3. The following part can be quoted for the question to be decided here.
“Why the vaccines cannot protect against infection
A fundamental mistake in vaccine development was to neglect the functional distinction between the two main categories of antibodies the body produces to protect itself from pathogenic microbes:
• The first category (secretory IgA) is produced by immune cells (lymphocytes) located just below the lining of the airways and intestines. The antibodies produced by these lymphocytes are secreted through and to the surface of the mucous membranes. These antibodies are thus in place to counter airborne viruses and may potentially prevent virus binding and infection of the cells.
• The second category of antibodies (IgG and circulating IgA) are found in the bloodstream. These antibodies protect the body's internal organs from infectious agents that try to spread through the bloodstream.
Vaccines that are injected into the muscle - that is, the inside of the body - induce only IgG and circulating IgA, not secretory IgA. Such antibodies cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARSCoV-2. Thus, the “breakthrough infections” observed in vaccinated persons only confirm the basic design flaws of the vaccines. The measurement of antibodies in the blood cannot reveal the true status of immunity to respiratory infections.
The inappropriateness of vaccine-induced antibodies for the prevention of coronavirus infections has been reported in recent scientific publications. "
Proof: Appendix A, Part 3
Regarding 4): Natural immunization after a disease has been overcome is effective and lasts for at least one year:
In contrast to vaccination, the natural immunization of the plaintiff can be proven medically and statistically.
The Society for Virology eV published the following updated statement on the immunity of recovered persons on September 30th, 21 at https://gfv.org/2021/09/30/4411/ (full text in Appendix A, Part 1) and includes the following Conclusions reached:
- The proven duration of protection after a SARS-CoV-2 infection is at least one year. From an immunological point of view, a significantly longer duration of protection can be assumed, but due to the limited observation period this has not yet been proven by relevant studies.
- On the basis of these current findings, those who have recovered should initially be treated the same as those who have been fully vaccinated for at least one year in the case of regulations on pandemic control (e.g. compulsory testing).
- A review of the recommended time of vaccination after surviving SARS-CoV-2 infection is recommended.
Proof: Appendix A, Part 1
On November 8, 21, Noah Kojima and Jeffrey D. Klausner published a review of several studies showing that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and tested seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have a low rate have SARS-CoV-2 re-infections. They came to the conclusion:
“Although these studies show that the protection against re-infection is strong and lasts after more than 10 months of follow-up3, it is not known how long the protective immunity really lasts. Many systemic viral infections, such as measles, confer long-term, if not lifelong, immunity, while others, such as influenza, do not (due to changes in viral genetics). We are limited by the length of currently reported follow-up data in order to know with certainty the likely duration that a previous infection will protect from COVID-19. Encouragingly, authors of a study conducted on recovered individuals who had suffered mild SARS-CoV-2 infection reported that mild human infection induced a robust, antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory.13 "
Proof: Appendix A, Part 4
According to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the rule of law of Article 20 of the Basic Law, the same facts must be treated equally. According to the above findings, which led to conclusion 1 of the Society for Virology eV, the proven duration of protection is one year, while in the case of a vaccination a decrease in protection is observed after 6 months and is observed by the Standing Vaccination Commission of the Robert Koch Institute (STIKO) a booster vaccination is recommended after 3 months. The result is that natural immunization through infection should be even better than artificial immunization through vaccination. In this case, however, the unequal treatment of vaccinated persons with an exemption from protective measures for one year and those who have recovered with an exemption for only 6 months (in fact only 5 months from the issuance of the certificate) is arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
The division of people into groups 3G, 2G and 1G and thus also the duration of the plaintiff's recovery certificate is based on the assumption that those who have been vaccinated pass on the corona virus far less than those who have not been vaccinated. However, there are new findings on this.
While politics in Germany tried to prevent contact between people and thus the spread of the virus, in Sweden this spread was deliberately allowed and lockdowns or mask requirements were waived. The case numbers from both countries as well as the deaths and vaccinations are compared with the following screenshots from the Johns Hopkins University website on December 29, 21:
(The color has been changed to make it easier to see in the printout; the arrows have been inserted)
The first wave was higher in Sweden than in Germany. In the second wave, both countries were about the same and in the third wave, Germany was slightly higher. The current fourth wave produced significantly higher numbers of cases in Germany from November 2021 than the three previous waves. In Sweden, on the other hand, the fourth wave of deaths practically failed to materialize. More people test positive, but no more severe cases have been observed. In terms of deaths per 1 million inhabitants, the development in both countries between August 2020 and the end of October 2021 was practically identical, as shown by the following graph from data from Johns Hopkins University:
Proof: The figures on which the graphic is based can be found in Appendix B, Part 7
Dr. A. Weber in his analysis “17 statistical abnormalities in death data for Germany” on https://reitschuster.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Analyse_Sterbedaten_20_21.pdf in his statement “8. The excess mortality is congruent with the excess mortality in Sweden in the second corona wave ”, which compares absolute figures.
Evidence: The full text is attached as Appendix B, Part 9.
A plausible explanation for this would be that natural immunization is already well advanced in Sweden and Sweden would then have overcome the pandemic. Vaccinations in Germany even rose sharply from mid-November, at the same time as the rise in deaths. The comparatively low deaths in Sweden cannot be explained by a higher vaccination rate.
Regarding 5): A worse position of those who have recovered than those who have been vaccinated is also not objectively justified because every vaccination is associated with health risks, whereas the infection that has survived is not.
Sucharit Bhakdi and Arne Burkhardt discovered on December 14th, 21st that the mRNA vaccines can trigger self-destruction in the body. To do this, they carry out:
"A natural SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) infection will remain localized in the airways of most people. In contrast, the vaccines cause cells deep in our bodies to express the viral spike protein, which they were never naturally intended to do. Every cell that expresses this foreign antigen is attacked by the immune system, in which both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic lymphocytes are involved. This can happen in any organ. We now see that many young people have their hearts affected, resulting in myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death. How and why such tragedies could be causally linked to vaccinations remained a matter of speculation due to a lack of scientific evidence. "
Evidence: The full text is attached as Appendix A, Part 3.
The application of the new mRNA vaccines, which have never before been used on humans or in veterinary medicine outside of laboratories, is the result of human experiments in which the preparations are tested in practice. However, this violates item 1 of the Nuremberg Code of the reasons for the judgment of August 20, 1947 on the Nuremberg medical trial, because the vaccinated were not informed about this and because many of them, with "disadvantages for unvaccinated", were forced to give their consent. The factually unfounded disadvantage of those who have recovered versus those who have been vaccinated is part of the political pressure exerted. There is no plausible medical justification for this.
The findings from the use of the drug Contergan between 1957 and 1961 give reason to fear that an inadequately tested drug can fundamentally have unpredictable risks and cause serious damage to health. If mRNA vaccines are approved after only 10 months of development, a sufficiently long trial phase may not have taken place for reasons of time.
It is inappropriate to use political pressure or, in the case of compulsory vaccination, to force people to take these risks with political pressure or, in the case of compulsory vaccination, even with state compulsion to induce people with good protection after an infection that has been overcome and who do not need a vaccination even if it was effective.
An open letter from the "Doctors Stand Up" initiative dated December 13th, 2021 comes to the following conclusion on this question:
“The absolute, individual benefit of vaccinations against COVID-19 is marginal in the population average. It may be higher for people at high risk of a severe course of COVID. Even for these people, however, the vaccines have as yet unknown risks of negative long-term effects. Young and healthy people and especially healthy children and adolescents must be advised against vaccination, as the risks of serious side effects and long-term effects far outweigh the possible benefits.
The claim that vaccination protects other people from COVID-19 is not valid and untrustworthy in view of the high number of illnesses among vaccinated people and the lack of difference in infectivity between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Vaccination of those who have recovered is neither scientifically nor epidemiologically meaningful. "
Evidence: The full text is attached as Appendix A, Part 5.
On November 4th, 21st published in “Die Tagespost - Catholic newspaper for politics, society and culture” 10 theses on the prevailing politics of 5 emidemiologists. Thesis 10 came to the result:
“Based on the experience of the past 18 months and based on the global development of the infection and mortality rates, no relevant successes of previous pandemic control measures can be identified, but many serious collateral damage. For example, countries in which draconian lockdown measures have been imposed do not, on average, show any better results, e.g. in terms of overall mortality, than countries without lockdown measures. "
Evidence: The full text is attached as Appendix A, Part 6.
Anyone who can calculate must actually be able to recognize the senselessness of the previous methods, including vaccination, even if the mainstream media should try to label Adam Riese as a conspiracy theorist.
For the reasons given for theses 2 to 5, there is no objective reason that could justify a worse treatment of those who have recovered than those who have been vaccinated. At most, a better position could be justified. § 2 No. 5 SchAusnahmV thus violates the principle of equal treatment of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law and is unconstitutional. This void provision of a state ordinance may therefore not be taken into account by the court. The issuance of a preliminary regulation as an act of the executive is also subject to review by the administrative courts.
We reserve the right to provide further reasons, in particular in response to the statement of defense.