Study on Corona measures published

“Many coronavirus measures have caused heated discussions during the pandemic. These included compulsory masks, contact restrictions, closed schools and daycare centers. According to a study by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), it has now been proven that the strict restrictions on public life have made a significant contribution to combating the coronavirus pandemic.” A year and a half later, on 31.01.2025, Die Welt reported: “Health Minister Lauterbach likes to cite the RKI's ‘Stop Covid’ study as proof of the effectiveness of the coronavirus measures. Now a team of eight researchers has come to a different conclusion: the summary “We got through the pandemic well” lacks a factual basis. ... However, one major flaw in the “Stop Covid” study, which the ministry awarded without a call for tenders, is already clear: only a single and unusable calculation model was used. “Even the simplest basics don't work,” criticizes US statistics professor John Ioannidis, one of the world's most cited scientists, in an interview with Welt am Sonntag. “If you use better models, there are no reliable effects on the spread of the pandemic waves for any of the measures,” said the biomathematics expert.” Reminder: In March 2019, Ioannidis was funded and presented by Stiftung Charité Berlin: “John Ioannidis from Stanford University is considered a luminary in the field of meta-research, i.e. research on research. Now the researcher, who is often referred to as “the conscience of science”, has founded a new Meta-Research Innovation Center in Berlin.” “Koryphäe” means summit, meaning highest, most excellent, leader. But at the beginning of 2020, the so-called World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly claimed that a new type of coronavirus had triggered a Covid-19 pandemic and that protective measures were now needed to save humanity from a catastrophe. As more and more stringent so-called “corona protection measures” were imposed on citizens in the first half of 2020, Ioannidis said that it was not the coronavirus but these alleged protective measures that would cause great harm. Because Ioannidis thus questioned the WHO narrative, he fell from his summit. The Laborjournal referred to this on 8 June 2020 in an article entitled: “”The Ioannidis case” - sloppiness at the guardian of scientific quality standards?” Once again: According to Ioannidis, it is not the coronavirus but a mass of draconian protective measures that is causing great harm. Opponents spoke out against this thesis of the Ioannidis study, and the laboratory journal writes: “The main criticism of this study: At the beginning of an epidemic, when the prevalence of a disease is by definition low, it makes little sense to calculate the absolute (or even relative) mortality risk of the disease. What matters in the early phase of the pandemic is not the absolute mortality risk of the infection, but the capacity of the healthcare system and the extent of collateral damage from non-pharmacological interventions (social distancing, lockdown, etc.).” According to the Labor Journal, “a dark shadow falls on the ‘god’ of scientific reform: despite the weak data base he himself formulated, he suggested in the same breath, in very drastic words, that we are dramatically overreacting.” On 25.04.2022, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung then ran the headline: “Corona: Scientists like John Ioannidis play down the pandemic.” This article “Twisted science. It's not all that bad!” begins with the words: ”Deny, hide, pretend: statistician John Ioannidis calls for the pandemic to be declared over. His arguments are poor.” Now, at the beginning of 2025, Ioannidis does not appear to be a “trivializer”. In the current Welt article, the new Ioannidis criticism of the RKI study states: “Overall, only a few measures would have had a measurable effect. According to the study, restrictions in public spaces had a modest effect, and the effect of school closures was even smaller - they could hardly slow down the spread of the virus. Virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit summarizes: “According to the study, measures such as mandatory masks or contact restrictions had no effect.” On the subject of vaccination, the scientists point out that a “higher vaccination coverage rate can even lead to an increase in infection peaks under certain conditions”. And again as a reminder: back at the beginning of 2020, when the rumor of a new type of coronavirus killer was circulating in the mainstream, there were also urgent warnings from credible medical experts that a new edition of delusions such as bird flu and swine flu was imminent. Delusions that an above-average number of people will now die from a cold; that colds can be prevented by measures such as masks; that every flu vaccination protects everyone vaccinated from the flu; that respiratory disease is the only threat to life; that death from respiratory disease is unnatural. The mainstream media and social networks made a gigantic effort to tolerate only one opinion: the opinion of the so-called World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO had announced the corona pandemic, had preached ongoing relentless so-called “corona tests” and ongoing relentless so-called “corona measures”. And long before that, on 19.01.2019, Spiegel wrote: “WHO declares vaccination opponents a global threat ... The World Health Organization (WHO) has added the avoidance or delay of vaccinations to its list of global health threats. According to the experts, vaccination opponents pose a similar risk to global health as Ebola, antibiotic resistance and air pollution. The problem is that the fewer people are vaccinated, the easier it is for diseases that could actually be eradicated to spread.” During the so-called “corona pandemic”, censorship then struck mercilessly: anything that was not WHO-compliant was usually at least deleted, and sometimes entire accounts with hundreds or thousands of other posts on countless other topics were deleted at the same time because of a single critical post on the subject of corona. Digital livelihoods were wiped out, professional contacts were destroyed because someone didn't want to sing along to the song that the WHO had intoned and conducted and that sounded loudly and unanimously in an endless loop on all channels through the media. In the meantime, both the USA under Donald Trump and Argentina under Javier Milei have announced their withdrawal from the WHO. However, the worst mistake would be to simply blame the WHO and its supporters. Legally speaking, the WHO has no say at all. The so-called “International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness”, or “pandemic treaty” for short and, according to critics, “WHO dictatorship”, is not yet in force. And even if this treaty were to come into force, every single person is and will always be obliged to tell the truth first and foremost. You must not agree with the untruth or even spread it, even if it is preached by the WHO and if it concerns topics such as the pandemic or vaccination. Was there a coronavirus pandemic? Are vaccinations safe and effective? You have to obey God more than man. The so-called corona pandemic has once again raised the question of whether blind faith in the slogans and stubborn adherence to the instructions of those in power must always be the best solution. Everyone must always act in accordance with the opening words of the Basic Law: “Conscious of their responsibility before God.” Amen.