_Background.png)
The portal Multipolar has sued for the release of internal data from the German Robert Koch Institut (RKI) from the Corona period and then published it.
The media and politicians are up in arms against this journalistic work and are demanding that the investigation should be carried out by those who caused the mess.
It is once again absurd what the media and politicians in Germany are up to. It is now known that the critics of the German government's coronavirus policy were right on practically all points. Contrary to what the media and politicians proclaimed when the "vaccines" were introduced, the "vaccines" were not (and could not) prevent infection.
Nevertheless, unvaccinated people were discriminated against with the G-rules and in some cases excluded from social life because they would allegedly spread the virus, which vaccinated people did just the same, because the "vaccines" did not prevent infections.
The stupid distancing rules, including the temporary ban on sitting on a bench in parks, were also nonsense and had "no scientific basis", as Dr. Fauci, who was responsible for the fight against Covid in the USA at the time, testified at a parliamentary hearing in early January 2024 (almost four years late).
As a reminder, governments and the media have been repeating like a prayer wheel since 2020 that we should listen to "the science" when it comes to corona measures, which supposedly recommended all the restrictions, which - as we now know - was also a lie, because there was "no scientific basis" for them.
The hard lockdowns were also completely excessive and did more harm than good. Even the politicians responsible at the time now occasionally admit this when they concede that this or that measure was excessive and not helpful, but instead caused harm - for example to children.
You are the unvaccinated - You are to blame
In addition, we now know from the figures on excess mortality that Covid was by no means the dangerous epidemic that the "Chinese cold" was presented as, because in countries that imposed no or only minor restrictions, mass deaths did not occur. Not much would have happened even without strict lockdowns and G-rules.
Nevertheless, the media and politicians justify the tough measures (and the few mistakes they admit to) by saying that, on balance, they did everything right and prevented a major catastrophe. Of course, some mistakes were made, that happens, but on the whole the politicians acted correctly and responsibly.
The role of the media
As the "fourth power in the state", it is actually the media's job to keep a close eye on the government. If the mainstream media were to do this, they would have to bombard those responsible with questions on the above-mentioned topics and a few more (for example, on the purchase contracts for the "vaccines" or on the costs of destroying the surplus vaccine doses) and demand clarification. But they are not doing that.
What's more, if the Multipolar portal takes on this task and successfully sues for the release of the RKI files, analyzes them and then publishes them, the mainstream media will attack Multipolar.
It will probably take some time before the more than one thousand, partially redacted pages from the RKI are actually analyzed, but one thing can already be said: The RKI obviously lied even after the files were published.
The redacted name
In an initial article on March 18, 2024, Mulitpolar referred to a passage from March 2020 and wrote, publishing an image of the relevant file
"The main clue is provided by the minutes from Monday, March 16, which state: 'A new risk assessment was prepared over the weekend. It will be scaled up this week. The risk assessment will be published as soon as [redacted] gives a signal for it."
Multipolar then concluded:
""It is to be scaled up this week" - apparently a political decision, not a scientific one, moreover abrupt and surprising, without any indication in the previous minutes and without fundamental metrics having changed significantly. The minutes note that "VPräs" presented this information to the crisis team, i.e. RKI Vice President Lars Schaade. They were only waiting for the "signal" for implementation, which the person blacked out in the minutes would give. Maybe it was Jens Spahn, maybe it was someone else. In any case, Wieler announced the upgrade the next day."
The new lie of the RKI
Almost all media in Germany, whether mainstream or not, have subsequently worked their way through this passage. Der Spiegel, for example, wrote about it on March 27 under the headline "Dealing with the pandemic - Why a commission on corona policy is necessary":
"At the RKI, the crisis team discussed changing the risk assessment from "moderate" to "high". The new level should be published as soon as the signal is given, the entry said. The name of the person who was to make the final decision was blacked out.
From this, "Multipolar" drew the bold conclusion that it must be a political directive. However, the minutes did not contain the name of a minister or the name of the Chancellor. The RKI later announced that the name of an employee had been blacked out. This was to protect him, for example from attacks by aggressive corona deniers. But the wild theory of the "external actor" was already out there."
In the meantime (more precisely, since the evening of 26 March), it is practically certain that the RKI lied when it declared that "the name of an employee had been blacked out" in order to "protect" him, because it is obviously not an employee of the RKI, but Dr. Hans-Ulrich Holtherm, a surgeon general of the German Armed Forces.
Tom Lausen discovered this in a home office program on NuoViso life when it was discussed on the show. Lausen had his software search the files for the name Holtherm and the software promptly found it and it immediately became clear that he must be the mysterious person, which was also confirmed by the fact that the blackening is the length needed to blacken the name Holtherm in the corresponding font.
This makes it clear that Multipolar was right in his assumption that this was "obviously a political decision, not a scientific one", because Holtherm was head of the "CORONA pandemic crisis team" in the Federal Ministry of Health at the beginning of 2020 and also headed the interdepartmental "Joint BMI-BMG COVID 19 crisis team" at ministerial department head level, as can be read in his official biography on the Bundeswehr website. It states:
"During his assignment at the BMG (Federal Ministry of Health), Holtherm also took on the role of head of the "CORONA pandemic crisis team" of the Ministry of Health and, together with the head of the Public Security (ÖS) department of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI), headed the interdepartmental "Joint BMI-BMG COVID 19 crisis team" at ministerial department head level. During this time, he was appointed Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of the Federal Republic of Germany to the European Union (EU)."
Lausen is therefore probably right in his assessment, unless the name of the alleged RKI employee happens to be just as long as Holtherm's. But the RKI could clear this up immediately by publishing the file unredacted.
If Lausen is right, this means that the RKI lied even after publishing its files in order to cover up the fact that the corona decisions were not made on any kind of "scientific" basis, but were dictated by politics. What was that again about "trust the science"?
It is remarkable that Holtherm already appeared in the RKI files in mid-March 2020, although he only took up his post as head of all possible staffs at the federal government on April 1, 2020, according to his curriculum vitae with the Bundeswehr. This raises further questions about how the decisions were made at the time and who made them.
Just no clarification!
I have only skimmed through the many articles that Der Spiegel alone has published on the subject in recent days, but that was enough to realize that they all have the same overt tone: Just no independent clarification!!!
In the Spiegel article already quoted, it sounded like this:
"It's good when people take the trouble to evaluate documents about corona policy at the time. It is good when courts support this concern. It is not good when it is mainly those who are just looking for a reason to see their anti-establishment stance against the state and its representatives confirmed."
Der Spiegel therefore accuses critics of the German government's coronavirus policy of "just looking for an opportunity to see their anti-establishment stance against the state and its representatives confirmed". To prevent this, the author of the Spiegel article demands in the next paragraph:
"Therefore Politicians themselves should make an effort to investigate their decisions during the corona period. The Bundestag should set up a commission of inquiry for this purpose."
In plain language: the same politicians who all voted unanimously in favor of the corona policy and are responsible for all of this should now investigate their own actions, while the critics of this policy, whose criticism has been practically completely confirmed in retrospect, should be left out. What do you think the outcome would be?
I'm using a deliberately harmless example; you could also use harsher ones: It would be like demanding that after a negligent assault, the perpetrator himself should investigate whether he was at fault. Just like the politicians in the Bundestag, he would hardly come to the conclusion that he had done something wrong after a detailed investigation into his own actions.
Ethics?
As I said, there are many articles on the subject in Der Spiegel alone these days, all along the same lines. And of course people who supposedly stand for ethics are also being interviewed. For example, Der Spiegel interviewed Alena Buyx, Chair of the Ethics Council. However, Spiegel did not interview the researchers from Multipolar, for example.
In the Spiegel interview, Alena Buyx did what she always does: she stated that she was not aware of any guilt.
As a reminder, the famous statement "Every dose must go into one arm" from February 2021 came from her, because Buyx was one of the loudest advocates of the radical corona and vaccination measures. She was asked about self-criticism in the recent Spiegel interview and her answer was simple:
"I'm happy to tell you what we should have done better, it's no secret: the Ethics Council was far too late in dealing more intensively with children and young people. I have talked a lot about it in talk shows and interviews, even as a mother, about how fantastically supportive children and young people have behaved and that we older people need to give this back. But of course the Ethics Council should have written a recommendation on this! We did something about the very old, who didn't leave their room in the care home for eight or nine months, and demanded a minimum level of social contact - but we didn't publish anything about the children! That was wrong, and I deeply regret it to this day."
In view of the three million children who have already become mentally disturbed by the lockdowns at the beginning of 2021, and in view of the millions of people who have been almost or really ruined by the lockdowns as small business owners, you want to say: "Wow, that's really really self-critical of Ms. Buyx!"
The fear of reappraisal
In fact, Buyx knows very well that she would have a real problem if a critical, neutral and objective review were to take place. She has already said so publicly. In November 2023, Buyx appeared at a discussion at the Munich Press Club about the mistakes made during the coronavirus era. Buyx claimed there that the mistakes were being dealt with in Germany.
She then called on the media not to report too much on the mistakes of the time, because there is a deep need to look for culprits that must not be allowed to break through. The reason is that this would not only affect politicians, but - at this point Buyx pointed an outstretched index finger at the journalists in the room - also the media:
"You wouldn't be left out of this. You know that very well."
Buyx was basically threatening the mainstream journalists present that they too would get into trouble if an objective investigation was carried out, because the media blindly followed the government's line at the time and helped fuel the corona panic game instead of critically questioning the government's policies.
Buyx went on to say:
"That's my concern, that that would be used, that doubt would be sown about these democratic institutions, about politics as a whole: it was all wrong, it was all evil, you misreported, you were all muzzled, you were aligned and so ... all these stories that you hear at the moment, that would have to be avoided."
The media as accomplices
There is probably a simple reason why Buyx warned the journalists of the consequences for herself, because Buyx is of course aware that she herself would otherwise "not be left out" if a review were to name those responsible and then demand that they be held accountable.
It is therefore unsurprising that the mainstream media are going crazy for Multipolar, because the journalists and editors of the mainstream media are just as uninterested in a reappraisal of the coronavirus period as the politicians responsible. The media's demand that politicians should come to terms with this is therefore all too understandable.
And it is already clear what the outcome will be if the Bundestag were to agree on a commission to investigate this at some point: After years of meetings, a meaningless report would be published.
And Ms. Buyx, who as head of the Ethics Commission would certainly be involved, has already said during the discussion at the Munich Press Club what she thinks a possible final report should contain, namely an indefinite:
"It certainly wasn't all good, they certainly did a bit too little here and there, one lockdown came too late, the other was too long, too intense"
According to the head of the German Ethics Council, who was involved in all of this herself, this is what reappraisal looks like: She is already specifying in advance what should be included in a final report.
It's nice that we already know today, even before a Bundestag commission has been set up, what the commission will present to us as its final report.
%20(2).png)