Five corona lies from the RKI, which followed the political orders – analyzed by Prof. Homburg

Lies and political violence of the totalitarian state

 

The alternative facts from the RKI

You’re reading about the RKI’s internal protocols (Robert Koch Institute – Germany’s public health institute) that have been sued everywhere these days. But the media is still quite cautious and doesn’t yet know exactly what to make of it.

Internally, the RKI knew exactly what the covid situation was, and its assessments largely coincided with what famous independent scientists said, such as Professor John Joannidis of Stanford University, Kulldorff of Harvard University, Bhattacharya of Stanford University. And that also corresponded to what the demonstrators and lockdown opponents demanded at the corona demonstrations.

Externally, however, the RKI announced exactly the opposite of what it thought was correct internally. It simply followed political instructions.

I want to show you this now using the original protocols. You can find the links in the credits of this video – so that you can check everything yourself. Everything I show you here is true.

1. Exaggerating the corona risk

Let’s start with the most serious case, namely the exaggerating of the risk by the RKI. To understand this, we first have to think again: What occurred on March 16, 2020? At that time, the schools were already closed and the national borders with France, Austria and Switzerland were closed. Above all, however, the federal government had concluded this agreement with the states , the “agreement between the federal government and the heads of government of the federal states in view of the corona epidemic in Germany”. This is a press release from March 16, 2020. So it had already been decided beforehand. It says that everything possible will be closed, including churches, mosques and other religious meeting places. Demonstrations were also banned from the start.

But what did the RKI say about the danger situation that day, March 16th? In the situation report you can read that the risk was considered “moderate”. And of course that didn’t fit at all with the drastic measures that politicians had already decided on. That’s why the so-called crisis team met at the RKI on March 16, a Monday. And the protocol shows us the following: “A new risk assessment was prepared during the weekend. It’s scheduled to be scaled up this week. The risk assessment will be published as soon as” – the name is redacted – “there is a signal.”

It doesn’t really matter who the name is. It’s certainly not who made the decision. Because such a far-reaching measure, sending a country into lockdown and subsequently proclaiming a risk that did not exist even in the world war, can of course only be taken at the top political level.

Rather, two aspects are important. It says that a new risk assessment has been made and the question is: by whom? The question has a clear answer, because the magazine Multipolar, which called out these protocols, also wanted this risk assessment. And the RKI lawyers wrote the following to the court:

“After completing this review, it remains the case that there are no further documents that deal with the change in the risk assessment on March 17, 2020 from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’. (…) The defendant (i.e. the RKI) cannot release information that does not exist.”

Yes, so there was nothing. They sat down and said it should be scaled up. And the following day, on March 17th, the RKI situation report actually said that there was now a high risk.

On March 25, 2024, the RKI tried to defend itself against accusations that it was simply following political orders.

Let’s take a quick look at the defense. The essential point is this document. There the RKI writes:

“To classify the protocol from March 16, 2020, it should be remembered that the number of infections in Germany rose very sharply.”

They mean the positive tests. Yes, the positive tests rose from 7,456 to 25,847 from the 11th to the 12th week of 2020 – that was the time in which the risk was upgraded, so they have tripled it, via the mandatory tests. We also see that testing has almost tripled. And if we now look at the positive rate, we see: It has increased from 5.84 to 6.91%. This does not justify upgrading a risk, especially since the RKI knew from its sentinel data that the clinical situation, i.e. the real illnesses were basically unchanged.

The RKI’s second argument: The WHO has declared a pandemic. Well, the WHO often declares pandemics without this having any consequences for us. If you remember the summer before last, the WHO declared a monkeypox pandemic. It was only in the headlines for a few days and then forgotten. The WHO has labeled it a “high level warning”. Nobody was interested. And after a while, the WHO took it back.

The RKI’s last argument is that other countries have also implemented lockdowns. Yes, that’s true, but at the same time countries like Sweden haven’t done it. The question is: Why did Germany follow the bad role models and not Sweden? There are no documents about it, nothing has been calculated. The most important point is: First the politicians ordered the shut down of the country, and then the RKI subsequently raised the risk to “high”.

2. The vaccination

Internally, the RKI did not believe in recovery and vaccination certificates. And there is a specific reason for this: Namely, as you read here (minutes from February 8, 2021), the RKI knew that the vaccination does not protect against infection and transmission. People were always told: protect yourself and others, and: vaccination can end the pandemic. But even the manufacturers had not claimed this, neither had the approval authorities, and the RKI knew that there was no such protection against transmission.

This protocol fits this (March 5, 2021): “The vaccination certificate should enable the recording of vaccination effects, long-term effects and so on, not be the basis for categories and advantages.” And then: “The WHO does not support certificates” – among other aspects for ethical reasons such as discrimination.

That was the RKI’s internal opinion. Outwardly, exactly the opposite was said. And there was discrimination between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, at the devil’s command. Many people can still remember that.

3. Long-term consequences of vaccination

Third point – and this was already seen in the previous document: long-term consequences of the vaccination.

The RKI wrote as I just showed it: The vaccination certificates were used, among others, to determine the long-term consequences of the vaccination.

But it was said publicly everywhere that there were no such long-term consequences at all. Only a few went as far as Mr. Lauterbach to say that the vaccination was completely free of side effects. But you could read everywhere: There is no need to worry about long-term consequences, get vaccinated.

As merely one of 1000 examples, let’s take a note from Stern published here: When the soccer player Joschua Kimmich didn’t want to be vaccinated, a real hunt for him began. And then it said in Stern: “According to Kimmich’s statements: Immunologist explains why there are no long-term consequences of vaccination.”

4. Lockdown damage

Fourth, second to last point: According to the RKI, the damage caused by lockdowns was greater than the so-called benefits. This is what we see in the protocol from December 16, 2020: “Lockdowns have more severe consequences than covid itself.”

The context of this sentence is a section on Africa, but what applies to Africa also applies to Sweden and Germany and is based on a simple principle: lockdowns result in the most severe psychosocial and economic damage. And corona itself was not particularly dangerous, so lockdowns were disproportionate. Of course the conditions in Africa are different than here; tuberculosis treatment was interrupted there, and cancer operations were not carried out here and the hospitals were left empty. In both cases, the lockdown was wrong because corona wasn’t a big risk.

And the RKI knew this exactly, as mentioned in a hair-raising document from March 19, 2021: “The main risk of dying from corona or covid-19 is age”. That’s right, because those who died with a positive corona test were on average 83 years old, the others were on average 82 years old. And then it says: “Covid-19 should not be compared with influenza (i.e. the flu), more people die in a normal wave of influenza.”

Well, that’s it. The RKI knew this, but it always acted to the outside world as if we had a deadly epidemic that justified extreme encroachments on fundamental rights.

5. FFP2 masks

Last point: the purpose of FFP2 masks. The RKI writes internally about this, and it couldn’t be clearer:

“…….there is no evidence for the use of FFP2 masks outside of occupational safety, and this information could also be made available to the public.”

Unfortunately, it was not made available to the public but was treated as secret knowledge, and the public was later forced by the state to wear FFP2 masks.

This misleading of the public also occurs in other parts of the protocol. I have read an excerpt that says:

“There is currently a slight indication of a slowdown in momentum, but this should not be conveyed that way in order not to call the new measures into question.”

The protocol is from October 30, 2020 at the beginning of a lockdown that lasted a total of 6 months, consisting of people prisoners in their homes for Christmas, New Year’s Eve, and Easter – crazy, while you could see that Sweden, without lockdown, actually did much better than Germany.

Conclusion

The RKI’s public statements, unlike its internal work, are not based on science, but on political loyalty. Politicians specify what they want, what measures should be taken, and the RKI then provides apparent legitimacy.

The media and, above all, the courts should rethink and not view the RKI as an independent expert institution, but rather as what it is: a federal institute that is bound by orders and has to say what the federal government wants at all times.

I think it is entirely appropriate that a committee of inquiry should now be devoted to this situation, to examine what exactly occurred at the RKI and why its external representation diametrically contradicted its internal representation.

Author: Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg

 

yogaesoteric
April 23, 2024