FAQ - Questions & Answers

We are committed to independent, transparent and evidence-based analysis.

On this page you will find important questions related to the Coronavirus, government countermeasures and lockdown consequences. If you click on the small arrow behind the respective question, the answer field will open.

Do you have suggestions for additional questions for our FAQ section?
Please write to us: kontakt@corona-ausschuss.de

SARS-CoV-2 is a SARS coronavirus variant defined since early 2020. SARS viruses have been blamed for episodic atypical pneumonias observed since 2003, although they can also be caused in a similar way by other respiratory viruses. The involvement of such viruses in the disease process is observed mainly by PCR tests. Due to the lack of differential diagnosis, false attribution is often possible in disease processes. That is because if you only look for one virus, you are blind to the many other relevant pathogens.

Fears that SARS-CoV-2 could be considerably more dangerous in terms of transmissibility, disease burden, and mortality than influenza have proven to be unfounded. In the vast majority of cases, infection is asymptomatic or with mild flu symptoms. The elderly or otherwise debilitated with pre-existing conditions run a higher risk of contracting respiratory viruses as well as SARS-CoV-2. However, many of the very severe courses, especially at the beginning of the wave of illness in March 2020, are due to panic-induced treatment errors (intubation, incorrect medication) Possible late effects largely correspond to those of other atypical viral pneumonias. A review of a total of 23 studies conducted worldwide showed that the corona infection fatality rate (IFR) for persons over 70 years of age is approximately 0.12%, and only 0.04% for persons under 70 years of age. In summary, SARS-CoV-2 infection should be considered epidemiologically as an integral part of the annual “flu” waves of diverse competing or synergistic respiratory infections. The extraordinary attention now devoted to this single pathogen is not medically justified.

SARS-COV-2 is the name given to the Wuhan virus. It was not cultivated at the beginning of the event and later has not been found in nature in the form documented as a computer file in early 2020. It is defined clinically by positive PCR tests, although these are positive for many different beta coronaviruses depending on specificity and quality of execution. Depending on the intensity of the infection, antibodies in the blood are also temporarily measurable in some cases. Since January 2020, thousands of mutants with more or less closely related structures have been continuously described worldwide, and some of them have also been cultivated and isolated. SARS-CoV-2 variants have long spread globally as the current seasonal corona cold viruses and continue to change continuously. Thus, they are “chronically” novel. Studies of pre-Covid 19 blood suggest that over 80% of people may already be immune even to such continually mutated coronaviruses because of their relatedness to other cold coronaviruses. Since our cellular cross-immunity recognizes and fends off multiple individual components of different corona derivatives, severe corona infections are very rare. The defense cells in the nasopharynx almost always recognize one of the components. What is causing fear in the public now, however, are the complications known from other viral infections which are fortunately rare and only received less attention in previous years.

National borders are of no interest to viruses. They spread very rapidly around the world, but divergent disease/death rates can be explained by local differences. Poor health care systems, hospital germs, decision making in panic situations, treatment errors, drug experiments, and unnecessary hospital admissions of very old people have led to varying degrees of suboptimal care for the sick in many places. Legal and organizational reasons also make it difficult to compare countries: counting methods vary widely, and financial disincentives encourage the assignment of many patients as “Covid 19 cases”.

 

No, most people have no or only mild flu symptoms. Children and adolescents are extremely rarely affected. Autopsies by a Hamburg forensic pathologist on more than 100 elderly people who died with a positive corona test revealed at least one other serious cause of death in all cases. Other published figures are mostly based on non-transparent attributions and conjectures without exclusion of other causes. Often, no attention was even paid to other pathogens or prior medication.

 

No, the body is protected by cross-immunity, antibodies and/or at the cellular level by “killer lymphocytes” (see above). At risk, as with all influenza, are elderly, multimorbid people with low immunity. Reproductive respiratory viruses, such as coronaviruses, enter the bloodstream only in rare cases. However, virus particles that enter the bloodstream as a result of medical interventions can trigger or intensify severe immune reactions. (e.g. intubation? vaccination?)

Coronaviruses can also be the last straw. For very weak people, even a mild flu can mean death, regardless of the pathogen. In most cases, a positive virus test is only an insignificant side finding. The average age of those who tested positive and died was between 80 (Italy) and 86 (Sweden) years. The vast majority do not die because of SARS-CoV-2, but they die with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The US-CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) also calculated that only about 6% of the more than 100,000 “Corona deaths” counted so far have died exclusively from Covid-19. If this ratio also applies to Germany, only 570 people (instead of about 9,400 – as of mid-March 2021) would have died exclusively from Covid-19. For the other 94%, the CDC has identified at least one other cause of death. Also in medicine, only what is deliberately searched for is found.

No, the test only detects virus fragments and does not indicate infection, contagiousness or disease. It is nonspecific with respect to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and sometimes gives positive results even with older viruses still in circulation and their descendants. Individuals who test positive are rare (less than 1% since June 2020), the vast majority of whom are asymptomatic. And a large number of them are likely to have a false positive test result. According to the results of the interlaboratory test of the German Accreditation Body, the false positive rate for a blank sample is 1.4% ,for a sample spiked with another Corona virus 7.6%. The positive results in the summer of 2020 are therefore likely to reflect to a large extent the background noise of the test itself. Due to heavy overloading of the laboratories (1.5 million PCR tests per week in Germany), there is often a strong decrease in quality.

The biochemist and Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis developed the PCR test in 1983 to amplify DNA sequences in vitro. According to Mullis, his test is not suitable for diagnostic purposes. Even today, the test cannot determine whether an active viral infection is present. The gene sequences detected by the test could just as easily come from a viral infection that has already been overcome or from contamination that does not lead to infection at all. However, it is questionable whether the so-called Drosten test detects the correct gene sequence at all. Many German laboratories use so-called in-house tests based on the test protocols published by the WHO (compare e.g. the so-called Drosten test assay of January 17, 2020). In accordance with European standards, these tests require official validation. In practice, however, such validation has been largely abandoned due to the “emergency situation”.

No, where there are few or no observable symptoms (reports from the RKI monitoring practices), false positive findings (around 1%) only cause damage. This is not improved by automated evaluation, but only becomes more intransparent.

A high-quality and transparent expansion of the state-organized influenza sentinel of the influenza working group at the RKI would be a good measure for assessing hazards and the respective pathogen spectrum in the annual waves of colds. In principle, multiplex testing should also be used for clinical routine in more serious respiratory illnesses to avoid misclassification or overlooking important pathogen synergisms. Multiplex tests can already analyze up to 25 of the known 100+ respiratory pathogens simultaneously with one swab. These are being used routinely in Scotland.

The PCR test swab contains not only viral material but also whole cells from the patient. A genetic analysis would therefore be possible with the sample in principle. However, in accordance with data protection regulations, genetic analysis of the patient DNA that is inevitably included in the sample may only be carried out if consent has been given. If the DNA is to be used for research purposes, the patient must be informed in detail about the specific research project involved. In practice, however, patients are very poorly informed; in most cases, they are not told which doctor is responsible and which laboratory is carrying out the tests, and they are not even asked for their consent to any further tests on the sample. In the hectic pace of the current events, there has been virtually no monitoring whatsoever of compliance with data protection regulations. At the beginning of 2020, Germany joined a European public-private partnership project (“1 Million Genomes”) with the aim of having millions of genome analyses carried out. How this is to be achieved in practice has not been communicated transparently. There is a suspicion that large laboratories, which carry out PCR tests on a massive scale, are obtaining this secondary analysis in a non-transparent manner. Data protection must urgently become more active here.

According to the WHO criteria in force until 2009, a pandemic was defined as an event with a severe course of disease and extreme mortality. In May 2009, the definition was revised so that it no longer depended on the severity of the disease, but only on a worldwide spread. The latest definition assumes regularly recurring waves and different phases. (pre-pandemic, pandemic and post-pandemic) Thus, every annual wave of influenza can be declared a “pandemic.” The International Health Regulations (IHR), administered by the WHO, also introduced an “epidemic emergency of international proportions” to take into account the non-standardized supply situation, which is already precarious in many regions of the world for various reasons.

The measures taken by the federal and state governments were aimed at avoiding hospital overload (“flattening the curve”). According to the continuously updated presentation of the University of Konstanz (https://coronavis.dbvis.de/en/overview/map/lockdown-live), there was no overloading of hospitals at any time. Neither the disease(s) and death rates nor the hospital occupancy rate gave or give anything for the assumption of an epidemic situation of national scope. All measures rely on the assumption of an epidemic based on PCR test results. The PCR test does not detect an existing infection. It only measures whether sequences of the virus in question are present in the body; these sequences may have originated from a contamination that has long since been overcome. Answer therefore: A clear NO.

No. The average daily mortality rate in Germany for all causes of death is around 2,600 people. It is growing with the current significant increase in the proportion of very old people in the population. If there are more very old people, more will die. In age-adjusted terms, the mortality rate for 2020 as a whole is now lower than the values for 2016 to 2018, and is almost exactly at the mean value for these years. The highest death rates, as well as the highest absolute death rates, occurred during the 2018 influenza season. The 2017/2018 influenza wave resulted in approximately 25,000 (estimated) additional deaths in Germany. In addition, this was associated with a higher loss of life years (Years of Life Lost), as an unusually high number of people in younger age groups from 40 to 49 years also died in the 2018 influenza season, which was not the case for year-end 2020. If a rough excess mortality calculation is made based on the averaged mortality rates from 2016 to 2019, it shows that 7,565 fewer people died overall in 2020 than would have been expected. Many deaths in the last year can also be explained as consequences of the lockdown measures.

The phenomenon of a (singular) second wave is epidemiologically unknown; there is a natural seasonal progression of all cold viruses, including corona viruses. The winter flu waves start around the 38th calendar week and usually run out in our country around the 18th week of the following year. Every year, the viruses sometimes come back at the same time, but often with a time delay during the cold phase of the year in a changed/mutated form. There is no valid evidence or indication that the more current Corona variants cause more or more severe courses when they return as mutations. The “summer flu” is mostly due to other viruses (e.g., rhinoviruses) that apparently were able to multiply unusually in the summer of 2020 despite or even because of the masks.

No, only those who are really at risk, usually the elderly or immunocompromised, should be protected. It’s like any wave of influenza: you can’t prevent the spread of the virus, but you can help those at risk not to get infected.

Five reasons speak against the use of masks:

(a) the SARS-CoV-2 viruses are smaller than the pores of “everyday masks” and are not retained;

b) rebreathing CO2 (hypercapnia) causes poor performance and headaches;

c) the humidity during prolonged wearing is a breeding ground for bacteria, viruses and fungi.

d) the frequent donning, doffing and disposal of masks leads to the spread of viruses.

(e) the psychological, social, and economic consequences are significant.

No significant reduction in infection rates among mask wearers has been found in large field trials (Denmark).

Masks are useful as occupational protection for medical personnel in infection control units. However, they are less helpful against the transmission of pathogens than the usual behavioral rules (e.g., washing hands, coughing or sneezing into the crook of the elbow). Many studies to the contrary were published after January 2020 and are suspected of being interest-driven.

According to a recent study, 60% of people who feel clearly burdened by the regulations already experience severe (psychosocial) consequences. This manifests itself in severely reduced participation in life in society due to aversion-related MNP avoidance, social withdrawal, lowered health self-care (up to and including avoidance of medical appointments), or the amplification of preexisting health problems (post-traumatic stress disorder, herpes, migraine).

No, infection is also dose-dependent and, in the case of short-term contacts of a few minutes, transmission by an uninfected virus carrier is unlikely. Without contamination by coughing, sneezing, spitting there is hardly any danger. Symptomatic infected persons should, as always, avoid contact with weakened persons and crowds of people, such as in buses, trains and waiting rooms, and if necessary stay at home.

No, children and adolescents and their regular contacts are rarely affected by symptoms of the disease and continuously familiarize themselves with new viruses without serious problems (“snotty noses”). Teaching and supervisory staff should only be protected in a few justified individual cases. Forcing children to wear masks is very damaging to many of them, both psychologically and physically. At about 6 years of age, children have built up a stable cellular immunity even against coronaviruses, and all those who regularly hug them refresh their immunity.

So-called mRNA/DNA “vaccines” are being developed against SARS-CoV-2. They are a premiere genetic engineering mass experiment on humans. Genetic material is injected into the muscle, which is then introduced into the cells using nanoparticles or viruses that have been genetically modified in various ways.  It then programs the target cells reached (targets) to produce parts of viruses themselves, which the body cells then present or release as antigens. This represents, even if it is worded differently in the law, de facto a genetic manipulation on humans. It is also a procedure that has never been routinely used on humans. This means that several immediate or subsequent strong erroneous reactions are possible. The most dangerous consequences are thromboses or life-threatening misregulation of the immune system at the next contact with natural coronaviruses (ADE).

Under normal circumstances, it takes six to eight years to develop a safe conventional vaccine. The novel Corona vaccines have been licensed in just a few months. This is considered by many experts to be highly dangerous and not compatible with the precautionary principle in effect in the EU and Germany. The (negative) effects of the new technology cannot be estimated, in particular it cannot be foreseen which cells and how many of these cells will be genetically transformed into mRNA bioreactors. Entry into the human genome cannot be ruled out with certainty either, so that any damage could manifest itself at a late stage or possibly only in future generations. Reactions involving platelets or vascular endothelial cells have already led to a strikingly high number of serious side effects and deaths from thrombosis and/or bleeding. The extremely shortened observation times also prevented the detection of possible late effects due to neoplasms or autoimmune diseases as well as the effect on defense processes in other infectious diseases or vaccinations.

In an attempt to develop a corona vaccine for cats, all of the cats died when exposed to the wild virus after vaccination because of an out-of-control immune response (called an overshooting antibody-mediated response, ADE). Experiments with a SARS vaccine indicated that a similar problem may arise in humans. Against this background, too, experts consider it highly dangerous to open abbreviated approval routes for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

No, it was harmful in many respects and, according to RKI data, the wave of infection subsided automatically before it began. Studies by the Israeli mathematician Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel have shown that with and without the lockdown, the virus had ceased to be active worldwide after about 45 days. Even the much-mentioned R-value shows this from Easter at the latest. The R-value may also have been artificially distorted upwards by increased testing with more false positive tests.

No, on the contrary, the statistical curves show that after the imposition of the lockdown, mortality rates increased in many regions and major cities, but not in all. This can only be explained by the collateral damage of the lockdown: Postponement of surgeries, preventive care and treatment of emergencies, avoidance of doctor visits and hospitalization, loneliness and neglect of those in need of care, increase in mental illness, suicides, misadmissions of the elderly, etc.

The paper “How to get Covid-19 under control” has been leaked from the German Federal Ministry of the Interior. There, the government has been recommended to use a shock strategy to motivate people to comply with hygiene rules. In particular, the fear of an agonizing death by suffocation of beloved relatives should be invoked, for which one could be responsible oneself if, for example, one does not wash one’s hands thoroughly enough. The instructions for such a manipulative communication strategy have been received very critically by parts of the public. Fear has immunosuppressive effects and is therefore not helpful in a phase of fighting a virus.

Great suffering has been caused in nursing homes as a result of the lockdown. Far-reaching bans on visits have been imposed, both in relation to relatives and to doctors, physiotherapists, speech therapists, chiropodists etc. As a result, the health of many people in need of care has deteriorated, in some cases irreversibly. The abrupt change in living circumstances – e.g., the absence of helping relatives – has put dementia patients in particular under great stress and emotional strain. In this situation, many have lost the will to live. Many nursing home residents have died alone, without their relatives, an horrendous burden also for the relatives left behind. From October 2020, the quarantine measures were particularly burdensome, even for healthy but positively tested staff. This reduced the already thin staffing levels in homes and many clinics to an unbearable extent. The elderly and those in great need of care were the sad victims of these absurd “protective measures”.

The measures interfered, and in some cases still interfere, deeply with the fundamental rights of the population. Particularly affected are the freedom of opinion (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 of the German Basic Law), freedom of religion (Article 4 (1) and (2) of the German Basic Law), freedom of the arts (Article 5 (3) of the German Basic Law), freedom of science, research and teaching (Article 5 (3) of the German Basic Law), freedom to choose and practice a profession (Article 12 (1) of the German Basic Law), freedom of assembly (Article 8 (1) of the German Basic Law), the right to property (Art. 14 GG), especially the right to the established and practiced business, the freedom of movement and the freedom to choose the place of residence (Art. 2 para. 2 sentence 2), the right to education (Art. 26 UDHR), the freedom of political parties to operate (Art. 21 GG), the right to free development of the personality as part of the general freedom of action (Art. 2 para. 1 GG).

Particularly in the case of massive restrictions on freedom, the state is obligated to continually examine whether these are absolutely necessary to avert danger, whether there are milder means and/or whether the collateral damage outweighs health protection, for example. The state must constantly make an active effort to gain knowledge (e.g. regarding the dangerousness of the virus, increase in the number of lockdown victims) in order to always reduce the encroachment on fundamental rights to the absolute minimum necessary.

The constitutionally relevant question is: Is the relationship between the reduction of the risk of contracting and possibly dying from Covid-19 and the (realized) risk that the defense measures will have negative effects correct? Ultimately, then, it is a matter of balancing the risks of life. Only if the remedy is no more harmful than the disease can a measure be justified.

No, the following principle also applies to physicians in the area of public health: Primum nil nocere = above all, do no harm. Measures that cause more harm than good are unethical and must be refrained from. The government has systematically avoided or prevented the otherwise usual harm-benefit assessment and scientific evaluation of the measures ordered as well as the testing and vaccination campaigns. Those who uncritically followed or implemented the measures were often also drawn on board by strong financial incentives.

The Corona ordinances stipulate that opposition to the measures does not have suspensive effect. State action can therefore only be challenged by way of urgent legal protection if immediate relief is sought. A more limited standard of review applies there. The plea must be made credible, and the judges are under no obligation to conduct their own intensive investigation. However, even in summary proceedings, judges are subject to the principle of official investigation and would generally have to conduct a plausibility check. Unfortunately, most courts have preferred to go along with the RKI’s assessment of a “dangerous” situation without conducting their own examination. On April 8, 2021, a judicial decision was issued for the first time at the District Court of Weimar – Family Court – which, on the basis of three expert opinions, pronounced an exemption from the mask, distance and testing requirements for two students. The decision was made under the aspect of possible child welfare endangerment by measure-induced psychological, physical and pedagogical damage. On April 13, 2021, the family court in Weilheim followed this reasoning.