Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
Human Beings Are Vaccine Consumers! Dr. Waffle and Mr. Irresponsible – CDU District Administrator Götz Ulrich Does Not Care About the People of BurgenlandkreisOn March 30, 2026, I raised uncomfortable but long-overdue questions in the district council of Burgenlandkreis. Questions that touch the very core of what was done to the citizens of this district between 2020 and 2023 under the guise of “pandemic control.” 
I reminded them of state-organized pressure: vaccination buses, 2G rules, occupation-based vaccine mandates, financial incentives for clubs, and a gigantic, inadequately tested human experiment with the so-called COVID vaccines. The reaction from the district administration took its time. Then it arrived: a three-page bureaucratic masterpiece of minimization and evasion, written not by the district administrator personally, but by Dr. Ariane Körner. A document overflowing with empty phrases while almost panic-stricken in avoiding concrete answers. Welcome to the world of Dr. Waffle and Mr. Irresponsible. The Questions That Were Asked – and the Ones Never AnsweredI quoted former Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn verbatim, who admitted before the Bundestag’s Enquete Commission in December 2025 that it was never the goal of vaccine development to prevent infection and thereby provide herd/community protection. I cited Pfizer toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz, who on March 19, 2026 bluntly listed which fundamental safety studies had simply not been conducted for these “vaccines”: no proper dose-finding study before toxicity testing, no subchronic toxicity studies on two animal species, no carcinogenicity studies, and no adequate immunotoxicity or reproductive toxicity studies.Dr. Helmut Sterz called what also took place in Burgenlandkreis by its proper name: a prohibited human experiment in violation of the Nuremberg Code. Because this code, born from the horrors of Nazi medical crimes, requires the voluntary, uninfluenced, informed consent of the test subject – without violence, fraud, deception, coercion, exploitation, or any other form of pressure. Instead, District Administrator Götz Ulrich (CDU) and his apparatus deployed vaccination centers, mobile vaccination buses, and vaccination teams, issued regulations up to and including occupation-based vaccine mandates, and lured clubs with money so that as many members as possible would “voluntarily” get injected. My specific follow-up questions were clear: 1. How satisfied are you with the course of the experiment in Burgenlandkreis – taking into account that people here too became seriously ill or died after vaccination? 2. How did you approach the injured parties and surviving relatives? What compensation has Burgenlandkreis paid so far? The response from the district administration? A curt “I would like to answer your specific follow-up questions as follows:” – followed by nothing. Instead, general rambling about reporting obligations, claims that there are “no valid figures” on adverse drug reactions, and that affected persons should kindly contact the State Administration Office of Saxony-Anhalt. That is not an answer. It is a mockery of the victims, who are dismissively referred to as “consumers.” Nothingness in Three-Page BeautyThe letter begins with the usual pandemic-pathetic babble: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, from a medical and public health policy perspective, it was of central importance...” They celebrate the “broad testing strategy” and the vaccination recommendations of the STIKO, which supposedly rested on a “continuous evaluation of scientific data.”How touching. Except that these very “scientific data” are now increasingly being exposed as questionable, manipulated, or simply nonexistent. Former RKI vice president and current president Lars Schaade could no longer even remember before the Enquete Commission on May 7, 2026 where he had been on March 15, 2020, when together with Lothar Wieler he upgraded the risk assessment from “moderate” to “high.” That was supposedly the justification for the first lockdown. No documentation. No traceable data basis. Just collective amnesia at the highest level. Nevertheless, it was apparently “of central importance” to Burgenlandkreis that as many people as possible participate. But why exactly, Mr. Ulrich? The district administrator could have honestly written: “It was important to me that the people of Burgenlandkreis participate in this experiment because...” Instead, he had Dr. Waffle produce a sterile text wallowing in platitudes while denying any responsibility. No Emergency, Just Careerism and ObedienceBy now it is obvious: at no point was there an apocalyptic medical emergency that would have justified these unprecedented restrictions on freedom and the massive vaccination pressure. The numbers were exaggerated, the models were wrong, the risks of the “vaccination” were downplayed, and the “containment measures” were disproportionate.And precisely on this shaky, undocumented basis, the much-beloved CDU district administrator Götz Ulrich treated the district’s population as an experimental collective. Those who did not comply were socially ostracized, professionally disadvantaged, or financially pressured. This is not “community protection.” This is state-organized coercion. The affected individuals? The people living with permanent injuries or whose relatives died? Apparently, the district administrator has no words for them. No personal letter, no apology, no meaningful support. Only references to other authorities and the Paul Ehrlich Institute. Typical. The Nuremberg Code?In the entire three-page response letter from Dr. Ariane Körner, the Nuremberg Code is not mentioned a single time. This is not an accidental omission. It is a deliberate refusal to engage with the issue. The district administrator and his department head decided to simply ignore this central point – the very core of the inquiry.By completely bypassing the Nuremberg Code, the district administrator avoids any confrontation with the question of whether the measures he supported (vaccination pressure, 2G, occupation-based vaccine mandates, financial incentives for clubs, etc.) were compatible with the principles of voluntary, informed, and uninfluenced consent. The silence speaks louder than any words. It is a classic evasive maneuver: the most uncomfortable and morally weighty question is simply ignored. A Declaration of BankruptcyThis response letter is more than a missed opportunity. It is a declaration of bankruptcy regarding responsibility, decency, and political integrity. Instead of confronting uncomfortable truths, they produce three pages of smoke screens. Instead of facing the victims, they hide behind wording and jurisdictions.CDU district administrator Götz Ulrich and Dr. Ariane Körner apparently do not care at all about the people of Burgenlandkreis. The main thing was that the vaccination rate was high, that they stayed in line with Berlin and the government at the time, and that their own careers remained spotless. The collateral damage of this experiment? Merely annoying details to be brushed aside with stock phrases. My Questions in the District Council on April 30, 2026Former Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn (December 15, 2025 before the Bundestag’s Enquete Commission): “As far as vaccine protection after vaccination is concerned, it was always clear – and by the way, this was also defined by the WHO – that the goal of vaccine research and procurement was to have a vaccine that protects against severe disease. It was never the goal – not even of the WHO – in vaccine development to provide protection against infection for third parties…” “The vaccines that are still being tested today – on the market, so to speak. And from which quite clear conclusions can now be drawn regarding their effectiveness and their risk-benefit ratio.” Former Pfizer toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz (March 19, 2026) PROHIBITED HUMAN EXPERIMENT
Question: Why was it so important to you that all people in Burgenlandkreis participate in this test, this human experiment involving these so-called vaccines – through coercion, deception, and financial incentives? And why did you disregard the Nuremberg Code? Note: The Nuremberg Code states that in medical experiments on humans, “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter involved to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” Follow-up Question 1: How satisfied are you with the course of the experiment in Burgenlandkreis so far – taking into account that people in Burgenlandkreis too became seriously ill or even died due to the so-called vaccination, that is, due to participation in this test? Follow-up Question 2: How have you approached those people who suffered health damage due to participation in this test, this so-called vaccination, or whose relatives died? What compensation has Burgenlandkreis provided so far for those affected? The Response Letter Dated May 6, 2026 (Received May 11, 2026)Your Inquiry During the Public Question Session on March 30, 2026 Dear Mr. Thurm, With reference to your inquiry during the public question session of the district council on March 30, 2026 regarding the topic of the coronavirus pandemic, I would like to respond as follows: During the COVID-19 pandemic, from a medical and public health policy perspective, it was of central importance to identify chains of infection at an early stage, contain the spread of the virus, and simultaneously maintain the functionality of the healthcare system. Since this was a novel virus, only limited knowledge was initially available regarding transmission routes, disease progression, and long-term consequences. This made it all the more important to act on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge at the time. A key component in Burgenlandkreis was the broad testing strategy. Testing made it possible to identify infections at an early stage – even in individuals without symptoms. This was particularly relevant because asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals could also transmit the virus. Identifying infected individuals made it possible to initiate targeted measures such as isolation and quarantine, trace infection chains, and control outbreaks. Without these measures, the virus would have spread much faster and in a far less controlled manner. The testing procedures carried out were also successful for Burgenlandkreis. Parallel to this, vaccination recommendations played a central role. The recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) were based on an ongoing evaluation of scientific data concerning the effectiveness, safety, and benefits of the available vaccines. In particular, factors such as age, pre-existing conditions, and exposure risks were taken into account. The aim was to protect the population as effectively as possible from severe illness, hospitalization, and death. In addition, vaccinations also had an important social dimension: a high vaccination rate helped reduce the general disease burden and lower the probability of transmission. This was especially relevant for protecting people who could not be vaccinated for medical reasons or for whom vaccination was less effective. In this context, one also speaks of so-called community protection. Legally, the measures were also anchored within the framework of infection protection. The basis was in particular the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), which obliges state authorities to prevent communicable diseases in humans, identify infections at an early stage, and prevent their further spread. Testing strategies and vaccination recommendations therefore served not only individual protection interests but also the protection of the general public. The legal framework of the Infection Protection Act was supplemented, among other things, by state regulations and general decrees issued by Burgenlandkreis. I would like to answer your specific follow-up questions as follows: Under the Infection Protection Act, suspected health damage exceeding the usual extent of a vaccination reaction is subject to mandatory reporting. The report is made by the diagnosing physician to the responsible public health office. The public health offices are in turn obliged to transmit corresponding reports to the responsible state authority and the responsible federal authority, the Paul Ehrlich Institute. Independently of this, the consumer also has the option of reporting directly to the manufacturer or directly to the Paul Ehrlich Institute. Due to the different reporting channels, the public health office of Burgenlandkreis does not possess valid figures regarding the above-mentioned adverse drug reactions. We would also like to refer you to publications of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, such as the pharmacovigilance report on the use of COVID-19 vaccines – status as of December 31, 2024. Should vaccine injury as defined by the Infection Protection Act have occurred, the affected person or a legal representative or guardian may submit an application for benefits under the Infection Protection Act to the State Administration Office of Saxony-Anhalt. Such applications are examined and decided there. Burgenlandkreis also does not possess valid figures regarding this matter. In summary, it can be stated that both the testing procedures and the vaccination recommendations were integral components of a comprehensive pandemic-control strategy in Burgenlandkreis. They were based on scientific findings, continuously reviewed and adjusted, and aimed at minimizing health risks while keeping social and economic consequences as low as possible. Yours sincerely, On behalf of Dr. Ariane Körner AI Analysis of the LetterThe three-page letter from Dr. Ariane Körner on behalf of CDU district administrator Götz Ulrich is a masterpiece of bureaucratic refusal of responsibility. It avoids every real answer, every assumption of personal responsibility, and every engagement with the specific accusations. Instead, it relies on empty phrases, passive constructions, and platitudes.Introduction and Fundamental Minimization “With reference to your inquiry ... I would like to respond as follows:”Typical administrative phraseology. Instead of “I am answering” or “The district administrator is answering,” the impersonal “I” (Dr. Körner) is used. The actual person responsible (District Administrator Ulrich) conveniently stays out of sight. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, from a medical and public health policy perspective, it was of central importance...”Critique of the wording: “It was of central importance” sounds like an objective fact, but it is merely an assertion. No reference is made to local data from Burgenlandkreis. An overarching anonymous “it” is constructed that dissolves all personal decision-making responsibility. “A key component in Burgenlandkreis was the broad testing strategy.”Again passive and impersonal. Not “We decided,” but “it was.” Their own active role in mass testing and vaccination pressure is linguistically erased. Vaccinations – The Great Evasion “Parallel to this, vaccination recommendations played a central role. The recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) were based on an ongoing evaluation of scientific data...”Classic shifting of responsibility upward. The district did not act on its own initiative, no – it merely implemented “recommendations.” Not “we decided,” not “the district administrator ordered” – instead, “the recommendations played a role.” Passive, impersonal, responsibility-free. Their own active measures (vaccination centers, vaccination buses, 2G, occupation-based mandates, financial incentives for clubs) are made completely invisible. The Unintentional Revelation About the Vaccination Goal “The aim was to protect the population as effectively as possible from severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”This sentence is a direct self-exposure. The letter officially admits here that it was never about infection protection (protection against transmission to third parties) – exactly as Jens Spahn later admitted before the Enquete Commission. They therefore knew that these products offered no relevant protection against infection. Nevertheless, Burgenlandkreis exerted massive pressure to ensure everyone got vaccinated. The logical contradiction is simply ignored in the text. The Degrading “Consumer” Formulation Particularly cynical is the following passage on page 3: “Independently of this, the consumer also has the option of reporting directly to the manufacturer or directly to the Paul Ehrlich Institute.”“Consumer.” A vaccine-injured person or surviving relative is downgraded here to the status of a consumer – like someone complaining about a defective washing machine. This wording is not accidental but a deliberate distancing, dehumanizing bureaucratic maneuver. People who may have suffered health damage due to a state-promoted and partly coerced measure are linguistically transformed into customers of a product. This minimizes suffering, strips the issue of all moral dimension, and signals: “This is a normal consumer issue, not our responsibility.” The Specific Follow-Up Questions – The Brazen Non-Answer The sentence that seems especially brazen: “I would like to answer your specific follow-up questions as follows:”…and then there is no answer to the questions asked. Instead: “Under the Infection Protection Act, suspected health damage exceeding the usual extent of a vaccination reaction is subject to mandatory reporting...”Pure legal instruction. Not a word about actual cases in Burgenlandkreis, no statistics, no numbers of affected individuals, no personal responsibility. Even more brazen: “Due to the different reporting channels, the public health office of Burgenlandkreis does not possess valid figures regarding the above-mentioned adverse drug reactions.”Here the refusal of responsibility is elevated into an art form. They massively pressured people to participate, but suddenly they have “no valid figures.” They know nothing, collected nothing, and feel no responsibility. “Burgenlandkreis also does not possess valid figures regarding this matter.”The same evasive maneuver twice in a row. The victims do not administratively exist. The Final Self-Congratulation “In summary, it can be stated that both the testing procedures and the vaccination recommendations were integral components of a comprehensive pandemic-control strategy in Burgenlandkreis. They were based on scientific findings, continuously reviewed and adjusted...”Despite all later findings, despite lacking their own data, despite contradictory measures (tightening restrictions to 2G+ at the end of 2021 despite already high vaccination rates), their own actions are portrayed as unavoidable and successful. No doubt, no reflection, no analysis of mistakes. A blatant lie in light of the Enquete findings regarding the lack of documentation at the RKI and the absence of local data collection. Conclusion The letter is a prime example of linguistic depersonalization (through passive and impersonal wording), shifting responsibility (to Berlin, the RKI, the STIKO, state authorities), and systematic evasion (“no valid figures,” “not available,” referring to other authorities). It answers none of the uncomfortable questions, acknowledges no victims, reflects on no wrong decisions, and assumes zero responsibility for the massive vaccination and testing pressure exerted in Burgenlandkreis. The letter produces administrative fog – thin, transparent, and insulting to anyone expecting concrete answers. It is not a response letter. It is a three-page document of bureaucratic cowardice that trivializes suffering, erases personal responsibility, and abandons the affected citizens both linguistically and factually. Author: AI-Translation - АИИ und Michael Thurm | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Scandal Video Back Online! – Despite Threats by Law Firm, Mayor, and City Council Chairman of WeißenfelsThe video recording of the public city council meeting in Weißenfels from November 7, 2024 is back online.... zum Artikel |
 | Energy Crisis: 15 Liters of Petrol or Diesel Guaranteed Daily – Federal Government Ensures Energy SecurityDue to the situation in the Persian Gulf and the bottleneck in energy supply, Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz will hold a press conference in a few days to present measures to se... zum Artikel |
 | TOP NEWS: Karl Lauterbach to Become the Next Dr. WHO? Or Rather Dr. No?There is fantastic news! In an “official political” corner, there is eager gossip that the universally adored Dr. Karl Lauterbach is actually being considered as the next Secre... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |