|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
Lies Have Long Legs – Wieler and Drosten Make Contradictory Statements About the Corona PandemicOn Tuesday, November 11, the Thuringian state parliament’s Corona investigation committee questioned former RKI President Lothar Wieler for the first time since the publication of the RKI protocols; virologist Christian Drosten was also invited as an expert. On November 11, the Thuringian state parliament’s Corona investigation committee offered a rarely clear picture of how brittle the official narratives of pandemic policy actually were. While former RKI President Lothar Wieler faced questions for the first time since the publication of the internal RKI protocols, and virologist Christian Drosten was invited as an expert, contradictions and gaps in memory became openly visible – along with the political irresponsibility that characterized large parts of the public Corona policy. Between Reassurance and Alarmism: Drosten’s Shifting PositionsVirologist Drosten once again defended the early data, primarily from China, which he claimed had been sufficient for initial assessments. His central message: high death rates had been avoided thanks to early political interventions, and the PCR test he developed had played a decisive role. The initially feared mortality rate of around 1 percent – ten to twenty times higher than that of seasonal influenza – had, in his view, justified decisive action.But at this point, AfD representative Wiebke Muhsal strongly disagreed: Drosten had claimed to have understood the danger of the virus as early as February 2020, yet publicly referred to it as a “mild cold” in early March. For Muhsal, the conclusion is clear: “It doesn’t add up.” And indeed, it is hard to overlook that Drosten’s statements, in retrospect, do not appear as a consistent scientific assessment but rather as an oscillation between reassurance and alarmism – with far-reaching political consequences. Particularly explosive was Drosten’s renewed justification of strict measures for children, citing asymptomatic transmission. In light of what is now known about the comparatively low risk for young people, this reasoning seems, in retrospect, like a strategic rubber-stamping of sweeping measures without sufficient empirical foundation. Wieler Under Restrictions – and With Memory GapsWhile Drosten appeared alone, Wieler arrived with a lawyer – and with clear limits: as a federal civil servant, he was not permitted to speak about internal opinion-forming processes within the government and ministries. Yet these processes would be central to understanding political responsibility in pandemic management.Despite his restraint, several points became clear:The Conference of Minister Presidents made decisions during the pandemic despite this not being provided for in the national pandemic plan – a clear indication of improvised shifts in power.The widely used incidence values were not based on scientific evidence. The COVID vaccine only marginally reduced transmission, yet was still presented as the most effective measure. Data on vaccine side effects, post-COVID conditions, and overall infection numbers were incomplete. Especially disturbing was Wieler’s apparent lack of awareness that the WHO had already lowered its criteria for pandemic classification in 2009 – as well as his surprise that the Pfizer vaccine approval process had not been fully completed and had not been unblinded. If the former head of the central federal institute for infectious diseases was unaware of such fundamental framework conditions, the inevitable question arises: Who was actually in control? And how could one of the most drastic series of political measures in the history of the Federal Republic be justified on such shaky ground? Politics Between Outsourcing and a Vacuum of ResponsibilityCDU politician Claudia Heber criticized the “fundamental imbalance” between the decision-making bodies. Indeed, during the pandemic an unprecedented web of informal meetings, expert circles, and political ad-hoc decisions emerged – with no clear responsibilities, no transparent evaluations, and no democratic oversight.At the same time, Wieler describes the political measures in retrospect as “rational.” Considering the psychological harm reported by witnesses like Dietrich, and in light of the obvious scientific and organizational uncertainties, this characterization seems like an attempt to retrospectively smooth out a chaotic reality. Heber herself emphasized that a “huge team” of scientists had stood behind Drosten and Wieler. But this raises further questions: if so many participants were involved, how could such a flawed, contradictory, and inconsistent strategy still emerge? The Foundation of Pandemic Policy Is CrumblingAbove all, the committee reveals one thing: the Corona policy of 2020–2022 was less the result of clear scientific knowledge than a mixture of speculation, political pressure, and a lack of transparency. The contradictory statements from Drosten, the memory lapses of Wieler, and the political-administrative disarray create the impression that many decisions were made not out of knowledge, but out of fear or opportunism.In a democracy, it is the government’s task to manage crises – but also to admit mistakes and draw consequences. The investigation committee shows how far we still are from that. Consequences for the Burgenland DistrictIn light of the contradictions and gaps revealed not only in this investigation committee, the unavoidable question arises as to what consequences those responsible at the municipal level must draw. For the district administrator and the administration of the Burgenland district, this creates a special responsibility: if measures, data foundations, and political decisions now appear, in retrospect, uncertain, contradictory, or excessive, a proactive process of review and accountability would be necessary in order to regain lost trust. This includes openly acknowledging that numerous citizens suffered under restrictions, controls, and fines whose legitimacy now appears highly questionable. A sincere apology to those affected, as well as the reimbursement of fines and the dismissal of any still pending proceedings, would be a visible sign of political and moral responsibility. Otherwise, the impression remains that justice is applied selectively — with significant consequences for the credibility of governmental action in the Burgenland district.Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | At SchoolA submission from a citizen in the Burgenland district about the situation in schools.... zum Artikel |
 | The Shameful Pig in CourtA desperate farmer, a stubborn boar, and a sow that fails to produce piglets – what sounds like an absurd comedy was reality in a remarkable trial like no other.... zum Artikel |
 | Fighting for Democracy with Convicted Criminals – or: Because They Don’t Know What They’re Quacking About!Why do some rather extreme characters online ally themselves with criminals and crank up the volume to agitate against the opposition?... 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 |